| 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
Allsport/Getty-The Saga Continues!
Rick Rickman, Photographer
 |
Laguna Niguel | CA | USA | Posted: 5:16 PM on 10.27.02 |
->> Well isn't this interesting! We again have a situation involving Allsport/Getty's conflict of interest with the NBA pop to the forefront on the attention meter. As some of you may recall it's been about 60 days since we discussed this very situation. It's not really surprising that this topic comes up again but it truly is tragic and, I feel it’s very serious.
It's been discussed here before and there have been points raised and questioned but now we have another incident in which we need to discuss what really constitutes and qualifies under the heading of independent wire service.
In the most recent game between the Lakers and Kings on national television, witnessed by the entire country, a serious fight broke out between Rick Fox and Doug Christie. The legitimate wire services, (AP, Reuters, AFP) moved images of this nationally witnessed altercation. Allsport/Getty, who has a contract with the NBA to sell and promote basketball pictures, yet claims they are independent in their coverage of basketball, did not move any fight images from that game.
After being assured that Allsport/Getty never omits any part of game coverage, by some members of this forum, I went to the Allsport /Getty server site fully expecting to see images of the fight being offered up to subscribers but, sure enough, there wasn’t a single image of that altecation to be found.
We've heard from some voices on this forum that having contracts with the NBA doesn't affect how Allsport/Getty covers or moves pictures of their paid clients. There were some rash claims made previously about how contracts with sports organizations don't affect the extent of coverage by Allsport/Getty. In light of this latest development, I think we have to re-examine the veracity of those claims.
Maybe, establishing sales contracts with the sporting organizations we cover does affect the extent of how those organizations are covered and what pictures are actually moved. Maybe, just maybe, calling an organization with sales contracts of this nature, an independent wire services is indeed a serious misnomer and creates conflicts that do need serious examination by the photographic industry.
It's time that the farse of Allsport / Getty being considered an independent wire service cease. If Allsport/Getty wants and expects to be afforded the considerations given the other "bonafide" wire services it's time they start acting like what they claim to be or stop expecting to be treated like a real wire service. I believe this has become a serious conflict of interest and needs to be addressed in a much broader forum.
Rick Rickman |
|
David A. Cantor, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 6:43 PM on 10.27.02 |
->> Rick,
If they haven't signed any deals with other leagues should we, as editors, write off just their NBA coverage or do you think that this one instance taints their whole product?
cantor |
|
Matt Hevezi, Photographer
|
PSC 557 Box 914 | FPO AP | USA | Posted: 7:20 PM on 10.27.02 |
->> I agree that this is very hot issue for the industry. Thanks Rick for being on top of it.
Of course, for those who follow my posts on SS's message board, I've got to respond with input from a military perspective ... especially on this one.
Now as a military PJ, I represent the military. With few exceptions, we operate much the way a PR firm does and only move "good news" photos and articles out to civilian media.
I can't think of any recent examples of military PAOs moving products that would parallel a "Fox-Christie" fight photo. Yet wire services and other editors consistently pick up our military-produced products and use them.
This is especially true when our PJs are the only shooters at a particular exercise, event or operation. Anaconda in Afghanistan might be a good recent example.
So would it be fair to say, in the case of Allsport-Getty/NBA, the right thing to do is boycott their product except for instances where no photojournalists are working?
And finally, if this indeed evolves to where editors adopt this boycott policy of Allsport-Getty, will NBA move to restrict coverage by outside agencies (much the way the military does sometimes) to force use of their own carefully controlled products?
The military PR machine has been pretty successful using this tactic. Is this the future of pro sports too?
Rick or Bert, can SS request the official response from Allsport-Getty on the Fox-Christie fight photos? Please.
I'd bet somebody right now is busy carefully crafting a response to Allsport-Getty's decision to not move the Fox-Christie fight photos as we speak (er, read). |
|
Matt Hevezi, Photographer
|
PSC 557 Box 914 | FPO AP | USA | Posted: 7:24 PM on 10.27.02 |
->> Grover,
Can you guys put the threads back up from last month on this issue? |
|
Matt Hevezi, Photographer
|
PSC 557 Box 914 | FPO AP | USA | Posted: 8:04 PM on 10.27.02 |
| ->> Does anybody know John Hayes who shot some fight images? If asked, he migh be willing offer his input/insight on the Fox-Christie fight played off the AS-Getty deal. |
|
Gary Bogdon, Photographer
|
Orlando | FL | USA | Posted: 9:59 PM on 10.27.02 |
| ->> Are we assuming that everyone, (Getty,Reuters,etc.) got pictures of the fight? I don't know because the local paper here only uses AP, but was there a shooter from Getty there? If so, why not ask them, did they get pics of fight, did they move it, and etc.. And while we're all talking can we stop calling them Allsport/Getty, it's just Getty now isn't it! |
|
David A. Cantor, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 10:25 PM on 10.27.02 |
| ->> Currently I find only three photos of the incident. AP has LAS 104 and 107 by stringer John Hayes that show the on court minor melee with players restraining one another as the incident appears to wind down. Today the LA Times moved a shot on their service by Lori Shepler that shows Fox fending off Christie after Doug got up off the floor and went after Fox. Allsport has 15 action shots and none of the incident in question |
|
Jason Burfield, Photographer
 |
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 11:01 PM on 10.27.02 |
->> Matt...the original posts are all still on the server, we do not delete anything. Just do a search for Allsport.
-- Jason |
|
Dave Cheng, Photographer, Assistant
|
Max Morse, Student/Intern, Assistant
|
Los Gatos | CA | | Posted: 2:47 AM on 10.28.02 |
| ->> Rick - you say, "I believe this has become a serious conflict of interest and needs to be addressed in a much broader forum." What sort of forum do you have in mind? And also, what do you suggest should be done about this situation, if anything? |
|
Al Bello, Photographer
|
Merrick | NY | USA | Posted: 4:56 AM on 10.28.02 |
->> Hi Rick ,
Being a photographer for Getty, I myself was wondering the same thing about the fight and what happened with the fight pictures. The NBA photographers were there and when the fight happened, they shot it on chrome. There is still alot of film being shot at the NBA Games by the NBA photographers. No digital images were shot during the fight. This is why there was no fight pictures transmitted that night. Simple as that. I really wish you would have asked one of us what happened before you started this new link. It is no fun being attacked like this Rick. You know I think alot of you as a photographer and we have always gotten along. I hope this clears this up a little bit for you and anyone else. Ladies and Gentlemen. We at Getty are not monsters, and we are not evil. We are all human beings trying to live in this f__ked up world. There is so many more things to worry about than who puts out fight pictures and who doesn't. We do some things different than other photo agencies. Is that so bad? Getty is different than Newsport is different from AP, Reuters, AFP
etc. Everyone has their own way of doing things. Please understand that. We have never questioned or judged anybody. For me , working for Getty is better now than it ever was. We have a really tight knit group working together around the globe. I just finished covering the World Series with a group of people I would not trade for anyone. Hope this clears things up a little. Thank you.
Al |
|
Matt Hevezi, Photographer
|
PSC 557 Box 914 | FPO AP | USA | Posted: 11:32 AM on 10.28.02 |
->> Al,
If you can take off your Getty hat and look at this whole thing from a "photojournalism" industry viewpoint, I think you'll see that it is not specifically an issue about NBA, your agency, or even the Fox-Christie fight photos.
It's about the public's right to know, access, and the ability for photojournalists to report the truth.
When business interests supersede this, there is great concern. If marketing photographers have the access and the photojournalists do not, it's a problem; maybe not for your agency or you as an individual, but yes for the industry.
Don't ding Rick for looking out for the welfare and future of photojournalism. And please don't take it personally.
We, the photojoournalists, are the caretakers of our industry's own future. Who is going to care for it? Certainly not the corporate folks.
Anything that could potentially impact that -- Notre Dame credentialing agreement and rights issue a good good example -- will become an immediate concern to all photojournalists.
Can you tell us a little more about this event as an education point? Many of us, including myself, know little about how you guys from Getty operate? Who (how many photographers) from NBA, Allsport and Getty shot this game? And how will those images be used? |
|
Jason Burfield, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 4:11 PM on 10.28.02 |
->> ...
>Don't ding Rick for looking out for the welfare and future of
>photojournalism. And please don't take it personally.
...
I don't think anyone was 'dinging' Rick...just saying that if all info was known before posting then this probably would not have been an issue. If Getty/Allsport/whatever they are called, does not have photos of an event, they can't move them. Simple as that really. If they had photos and DID NOT move them, that would be a different story. |
|
Rick Rickman, Photographer
|
Laguna Niguel | CA | USA | Posted: 4:37 PM on 10.28.02 |
->> Al:
I really appreciate your explanation as to the reasons behind the absence of “complete” game coverage for the Lakers & Kings NBA game. I want to say right up front that I think the world of you and some of the other Getty Sports photographers. You personally are one of the finest, hardest working, most conscientious, sports photographers and people I know in this business.
For that reason, it’s very import for me to have you understand that my concern with how Getty is doing business is not an “attack” on you or some of the other photographers that work for Getty. I have great admiration for the work of many of the photographers at Getty. I think it was Jed who mentioned in the last discussion we had on this topic, that Getty has some of the finest sports photographic talent in the world working for them. I agree with that completely.
My concern rests with the way formerly Allsport, now Getty, is doing business in the photographic market place and the claims they continue to make in regard to being an “independent wire service.” As an employee of an organization we often can’t control the decisions made by management. I understand that fact. I used to work as an employee of newspapers for many many years. In this case, the decision making process of what Getty, the business, is doing is totally up to the management.
However, the fact remains, If Getty is going to be considered an independent wire service they are going to have to take responsibility for being considered a wire service or not expect to receive the considerations that having that title conveys.
To keep all this in some sort of perspective we have to go back a few years when Allsport was still the name. There were two reasons Allsport ever came up with the idea of becoming a wire service. I know this from conversations I had with Steve Powell and other top managers of Allsport during that era about this very topic.
The first and foremost reason that Allsport wanted to be considered a wire service was that they were having serious problems getting access to events. Particularly, NBA coverage. Allsport was told specifically that to obtain access to the games they had to either be credentialled through a publication or be a wire service. No picture agencies were going to be credentialled to NBA games. The secondary reason was the creation of a new revenue stream for the company by supplying a service to some publications. This was the basic beginning of the creation of the Allsport, as wire service scenario.
Fast forward to today and we have a situation in which the former Allsport, now Getty is actively marketing themselves as a wire service but not being willing to staff sporting events in a fashion in which all events are covered adequately by staff photographers of Getty. Hence, we have a situation in which Getty relies on NBA staff photographers to cover games for them. This is very similar to allowing the foxes to guard the hen house.
I have been aware for years of the NBA policy of never selling or allowing to be sold images of the NBA that places the NBA in a poor light. It’s common knowledge throughout the photographic community. To believe that staff photographers for the NBA whose livelihood is controlled by their employer will willingly send material out that places their livelihood in jeopardy is a ludicrous assumption.
In an article in PDN about this very issue it was printed;
Critics say the partnership could make Getty reluctant to release images that reflected poorly on the NBA, such as a fight or controversial officiating. Others are worried about that other independent news organizations could get squeezed out of the picture.
Peter Orlowsky, vice president of sales and marketing for Getty, says the agreement hasn’t affected the company’s coverage. "We cover it good or bad," Orlowsky says. "If we got it, it’s going out. [The NBA] can’t tell us what to distribute."
Apparently, Peter Orlowsky is wrong on both accounts. It’s convenient for someone to say, "If we got it, it’s going out. [The NBA] can’t tell us what to distribute." It’s a liitle more difficult to make sure that each and every game is staffed by an Allsport staffer to make good on the statement,
"We cover it good or bad," By allowing the NBA staff to cover the game for them, Getty has allowed the NBA to tell them what to distribute by default.
This arrangement has all the earmarkings of a serious conflict of interest and then some. The article in PDN started out;
Getty’s Deal With NBA Stirs Controversy
Last November, with little fanfare, Getty Images announced a five-year deal to be the official photo agency of the NBA, WNBA and NBDL basketball leagues. Under the agreement, Getty will process, market, distribute and license work from NBA photographers just as it does from its own shooters.
While the company hails the partnership as a strong money-making venture, some photo editors say Getty can’t remain an independent news service when it partners with the organizations it covers.
Nancy Andrews, director of photography at The Detroit Free Press, refuses to run NBA images coming from Getty. To her, the deal makes Getty’s photographs no different than promotional material.
"It’s against our policies to pay the people we’re covering for news and access, and that’s what we expect of the news organizations that are providing us with images," Andrews says. "It’s the appearance of a conflict of interest."
I’d say that at this juncture this has become more than just the appearance of conflict of interest.
Al had mentioned that the reason that the fight images weren’t moved was that those images were shot on film and had to be edited and transmitted later. This may indeed be the case but, in a very recent visit to Brooks Institure, Andy Bernstein, one of the premiere photogrpahers for the NBA, was stating that he has made the conversion to digital and so have most of the other photographers covering the NBA.
If this is indeed true then the “fight on film theory” doesn’t ring correct. It also seems very strange that if the game was covered on film how did the photographers of the NBA get the 12 images to Getty that it did in such a hurry. It’s stranger yet that the 12 images came from different periods of the game that was played.
Max Morse asked me what I think should be done about this situation and I’m not sure just how best to deal with this. One thing that I think is expressly important however, is for this situation to continue to be discussed in this industry in places like the Colunmbia Journalism Reveiw and in the NPPA magazine.
I think Getty’s claims of being an independent wire service while at the same time trying it’s utmost to monopolize coverage access for itself, as is the case with MLS soccer need serious investigation and if found to be insufficient to meet the standard set by the bonafide wire services, then the current considerations for access be re-evaluated. I know in my heart, what’s going on right now is not right. That’s one thing I’m certain of.
Rick Rickman |
|
David G. McIntyre, Photographer
|
Hong Kong | N/A | Hong Kong | Posted: 7:36 PM on 10.28.02 |
->> I agree with Rick about how Getty should be a wire service if they are billing themselves as that.
If one is going to shoot film and not get it out on the wires immediatly, then you are either a publication or picture agency or something else besides a wire service.
Given that Getty says we are a wire service means that we will provide almost instant posting of newsworthy images right away.
It is also surprising that since this was the most signifigant moment of the game (and probably the NBA for the week) that Getty would not try to get that image out as soon as possible so that clients would use it. I recall that Allsport used to set up dark rooms on the road, and in LA have their own E-6 lab to process and dupe images for syndication. But I guess the 12 OTHER images transmitted were deemed more newsworthy than the fight?
Thanks,
David McIntyre
Hong Kong |
|
Jed Jacobsohn, Photographer
|
Oakland | CA | USA | Posted: 8:45 PM on 10.28.02 |
->> Wow, really didn't take you long on this one...Once again Rick has jumped into a situation without all the facts. Unfortunately, that” feeling in your heart" has led to more accusations and half-truths. Seeing that I have never seen Rick at an NBA game, all he has is second hand information from people he may or may not of had conversations with. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but I think it would really benefit everyone if you got your facts strait before attacking like you do. Your constant attempts at muckraking are really starting to wear thin.
I think it has become quite clear from the message posts by Rick over the months why there is such dislike for the Getty Sport. I think it would only be fair to give a little history on Mr. Rickman’s attempt at a sports agency. A few years back Rick approached some Allsport shooters with his idea for a new agency called: Newsport. It was created several years ago by a group of freelance photographers who wanted to band together with their contacts that they have created over the years and form an agency. One goal was to compete against Allsport. That has obviously failed. Luckily, no one from Allsport made the move, seeing that the plan was very vague and really had no concrete business plan. I rarely see the Newsport byline and more often than not I see Rickman at events on a Newsweek credential, even if they don’t run any shots from the credentialed event. So Allsport/Getty is in direct competition with Rickmans' Newsport.
Yes, it is true that when Allsport was evolving, Steve Powell had the vision to create a service that supplied top quality sport only images to newspapers and magazines on “deadline.” This is how our wire service was created, and it worked. Everyone from the photographers to the editors to the AE's worked very hard to prove that we could produce a quality, competeive product that the worlds news media outlets would want. When we did this, it legitimized our business. Today we are universally considered the “fourth wire” by every major sport (and news outlets) in the world, having the same number of positions and credentials to events like the World Series, the Super Bowl, NBA Finals and the Stanley Cup as AP, Reuters and AFP. How has this happened? Well, it hasn’t happened by supplying a bunch of “publicity” photos for the leagues. It has happened by supplying an alternative to the wires. One reason that we are so successful in what we do is that we supply different style of images with maybe a different twist or angle to an event than what say, the AP would produce. This is why we have stacks of clips from the New York Times or the front of the MSNBC website, or double trucks in Sports Illustrated. Luckily, there are many creative websites, papers and magazines who appreciate this and buy our service.
As for the fight last Friday at the pre-season Lakers v Kings game, and for any other fight that may happen at an NBA game, the official policy for Getty or the NBA shooters is that if we have pictures to move of a fight or anything else that may be newsworthy, we will move them. Period. At the time of the fight Andy B. was shooting on film (despite Rickman’s false claims that they are all digital now, once again, misinformation.) I was watching the game on TV and the fight happened very quickly and then was over. The melee that occurred in the tunnel after the on court scuffle could barely be seen by TV let alone any still shooters. When the NBA is covering games for Getty, they are not strictly shooting “for the wire.” Especially in a preseason game. We are not like the AP, where everything is shot available light on digital. There are going to be situation where things will be missed because of this. It is unfortunate that we were not shooting on digital at the time because it was a newsworthy event. Despite what Rick would like to believe, there was not a conscious decision to withhold the fight pictures. |
|
Al Bello, Photographer
|
Merrick | NY | USA | Posted: 9:02 PM on 10.28.02 |
->> Rick,
Thanks for your compliments. it means alot. I tried to clear things up a little for you. It seems like it made things more confusing. There is little else I can contribute to this subject. I wish you well , and hope there will be some resolutions to this. I'll see you at the workshop . I am looking forward to it.
Matt Hevezi,
I do like the portrait of the red faced kick boxer you shot on your portfolio. I love boxing. It's my favorite sport to shoot. Any way, I was not dinging Rick. I don't think I've used the word Ding in my entire life. Me and Rick are friends and I was trying to help him understand things a little better in this latest Getty discussion. My Getty hat is glued on my head. It does not come off. Sorry, it is the way that I feel. I wish you well also. Maybe we can talk boxing some day.
Al |
|
Matt Hevezi, Photographer
|
PSC 557 Box 914 | FPO AP | USA | Posted: 9:50 PM on 10.28.02 |
->> To all:
We, photojournalists, are a family. Everybody in the PJ family -- just as brothers, sisters, uncles and aunts do -- has their own lives, experiences, beliefs and professional positions.
But overall, PJs have a commaradarie that is very strong and very special ... almost as good as the Marines have! That said, let's be tolerant of our individual positions. Right or wrong, we will all never see eye-to-eye on each and every issue that surfaces from time to time in our industry.
I firmly believe it only weakens the PJ family when we can't accept the differences of opinion and positions and then be okay with that. A family that sticks together through the storms is a damn strong family. A family that divides at the drop of a hat is ...
There's a lot of weird stuff on the horizon in the PJ world. The digital revolution has not even begun to show the depth of its hand.
I once saw a cool motto hung on a sign inside a military police command post at Camp Pendleton.
It read:
"Make the situation better" |
|
Mike O'Bryon, Photographer
|
Ft. Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 9:56 PM on 10.28.02 |
->> It's pretty much journalism 101...when you accept money from an organization, person, league, team...etc you are, in this case, photographing there is an immediate perception of a conflict of interest.
Whether that conflict actually exists is moot.
It's also not unrealistic to expect the resulting lack of credibility to spill over to the organization that ultimately publishes the images, in this case newspapers and magazines.
That said I have worked with Steve Powell...and David Cannon...and Craig Jones...and Jamie Squire...and many other Allsport/Getty shooters...they are all good guys...great shooters...and I’m proud to call them my friends...but that doesn’t negate the conflict their company has created.
With this conflict of interest hanging cloud hanging...anytime there is “question” about what (in this case) was transmitted or held...everyone has egg on their face. Regardless of the facts.
When you loose your credibility as a journalist...you've paid a dear price.
I’m not sure it’s possible to to serve two masters in this area.
Just my thoughts.. |
|
Rick Stewart, Photographer
|
Canandaigua | NY | | Posted: 9:56 PM on 10.28.02 |
->> I'm confident this isn't meant to be a personal attack on the photographers of Getty. What it is, is a gross misrepresentation and misunderstanding of how a company does business.Reading some of these posts is like reading The Enquirer, put just enough true stuff to get people start believing the crap is true as well. Please TRY to string some FACTS together before rambling about how Getty should be blacklisted as a "independent wire service"(or whatever the definition of that is!)
Amazingly enough it IS possible to shoot both digital and film at THE SAME EVENT...AMAZING!!! Why is this such a novelty to you Rick?? Is it soooo long ago that some of you don't remember when you had to shoot two types of film for a client??? Even the Orange County Register shot both chrome and B/W at one time right Rick? Well, some of that chrome didn't make final deadline, so must be the "Journalistic Integrity" was compromised. Oh, so if you're shooting an event and transmit some photos, you can't shoot some chrome at the same game for some of your licensees that want some???? Sorry, not everyone has switched over to Phase One digital backs yet. Andy may have said that they MOSTLY have switched to digital. Even your quote doesn't say ALL. You make it sound like the world is getting screwed because some images didn't make it on the archive. BIG DEAL!! Stuff happens. Why do you have such a woodie for this topic. YOU will never control the content released by Getty or anyone else....unless you own the joint.
Allsport, and now Getty has not and will not EVER fit in to Rick's apparent cookie cutter definition of a wire service. You have limited your definition of Getty to an "independent wire service" and Getty does do that. (read previous thread) But, Getty also has other services... Assignment services, Distribution contracts etc that sometimes can be satisfied with the same photographer at the same event...sometimes with and exztra photgrapher or two, whatever. This is good business both for Getty and thousands of clients around the world. What's so hard to understand??
As far as I know, noone at this forum is God and what makes any of us think we have the right to control the content that is distributed by Getty, AP, Reuters, NBA, NHL, Sports Illustraed, Time et al....whoever? When you become "King of the Credentials", then apply your personal ideals on Getty or whoever doen't fit in the definition you may come up with.
Rick also bends the true representation of why Allsport expanded into more transmitting.("came up with the idea of becoming a wire service" as Rick puts it)First, it was done because the world was changing to the need for more timely images. Second, there was a market for an alternative to Reuters, AP, AFP and UPI according to existing clients. Third,and THE PRIME reason would be that it made sense for the growth of the company, for the reasons stated above. It's true that we had trouble getting credentials to some events in the US because of the lack of understanding of what ALLSPORT was AND how many publications in the world get some of their photos. Again we didn't fit in to a cookie cutter definition. Allsport worked through that as well. Covering events live did eventually help....after about ten years. Even USA Today and Reuters(US) didn't get credentials to everything in their beginnings....and they FIT the cookie cutter!
To be blunt. No one owes any of you an explanation, and you have exceeded arrogance to think that you are owed one or will get one from ANY Getty Manager in my opinion. This whole thread was started on a misconception of what really happens, how Getty distributes images and how the NBA and Getty are partnered. You STILL don't know squat about the details and it shows. If you're trying to effect a change, I would HIGHLY suggest you get the facts before embarrassing yourself in front of your peers.
Many of you that read these postings are the up and coming photographers of the future and looking to be part of something important. This is not it. There are more important things to do with your time. Take some of Rick's previous advice and develop your client base, or take your partner out to dinner or watch TV with your kids....you'll accomplish much more. Of course, as I said in the previous thread on this topic it makes good message board banter...............
Rick Stewart |
|
David G. McIntyre, Photographer
|
Hong Kong | N/A | Hong Kong | Posted: 10:17 PM on 10.28.02 |
->> I am not a subscriber to Getty, But if Getty said they were providing photos of the whole game, then they should.
But I have a question: Now that the film is hopefully processed (and the film goes through Getty), have any of the fight photos now been posted after they were processed and edited?
David McIntyre
Hong Kong |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
 |
Amherst | MA | USA | Posted: 11:37 PM on 10.28.02 |
->> Jed:
For a while NewSport was using the Corbis web site (newsroom.corbis.com) for their image distribution. I believe there are just about 700 NewSport images still active on the site for licensing. I don't believe any of Rick's NewSport images are on the site though.
It is interesting watching agencies distribute images for other agencies. |
|
Josh Merwin, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 1:47 AM on 10.29.02 |
| ->> Just wanted to support the claim that NBA photographers shoot both film and some digital. This would explain why there are still shots from different periods by the photographers. From my understanding the NBA photogs shoot mostly film, because their images are mostly for the NBA's use for posters, ads, etc. and they shoot digital to cover Getty's basic needs for some game coverage. Getty's staff photogs shoot mostly for the key game action to put on the wire. With all the baseball coverage I'm sure the Getty staff photogs were shooting the World Series as opposed to a preseason NBA game. I think this is a topic that is a worthwhile discussion, but please, with all the facts. I think if the whole story was known from the beginning we wouldn't have as many people who are offended and tired of defending themselves and a company they work their asses off for. |
|
Bill Frakes, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 10:29 AM on 10.29.02 |
->> too much rhetoric on both sides.
EVERY journalistic institution decides what to release, and when to release it. EVERY journalistic entity has their own rules and reasons for those rules, and those rules are almost never promulgated by photographers.
does ANY organization release everything it shoots? and why not? EVERY single group has someone or multiple someones making those decisions using rationales that vary from place to place and time to time
additionally there are practical considerations. time and cost chief among them. each media group decides what the demand, desire and ramifications--good and bad--will be in every situation and acts accordingly.
the ONLY real issue here is this: is GETTY or ANYONE else trying to stop others from making images? if the answer is no, then lets move on. if the answer is yes, then there is a problem for us to discuss.
what GETTY releases and when is their concern, as long as others are given equal access to make the images there is no problem. it is only when people with legitimate claims for access are denied that access that a problem arises. |
|
Zack Uribe, Photographer
|
Santa Clara | CA | USA | Posted: 12:13 PM on 10.29.02 |
->> Bill,
What do you consider access? Is getting onto the field at a Soccer game, though being limited to the areas behind the goal considered access? That is, while the official photographers(Getty) have access to the sidelines also? |
|
Rick Stewart, Photographer
|
Canandaigua | NY | | Posted: 5:20 PM on 10.29.02 |
->> Since when does Getty issue credentials? If you have a beef with access, go to the governing body. So if you don't get access to an NFL game it's NFL Propertie's fault???
Some of you are disillusioned that because you have a 400/2.8, a body and desire to shoot an event that you are ENTITLED to do so. Sorry, that's not how it works. There was a time that that was sometimes possible....but not in the current world. And it's going to get worse.
Notice that Bill Frakes says "...LEGITIMATE claims to access...". Getty does not have ANYTHING to do with determining credentials. The NBA, NHL, NFL, MLS, IOC, CART, IRL, MLB, NASCAR et al. determine and distribute credentials...NOT GETTY! But it's easier for many of you to attack Getty than take on "The League".
Zack, most team photographers have better access than we do at MLS....however its up to the individual teams. In MY opinion, anyone with sideline credentials should have the same access. BUT, the fact that Getty is an "official Photographer" for a league is likely to give them better access. That access is given by "the league"! Not Getty! White House Photographers have better access than the rest of the media because they are the "Official Photographers"!!! Go figure.
Rick Stewart |
|
Jonathan Daniel, Photographer
|
Riverside | IL | USA | Posted: 11:04 AM on 10.30.02 |
->> I think it's important to re-read the comments of Bill Frakes, Matt Hevezi and Rick Stewart. Rick and me started with Allsport many years ago. We have seen the growth of the company and experienced it's growing pains over the years. Every agency, in journalism or stock that is successful, has gone through good times and troubled times. Whether you agree with the Allsport/Getty business model is unimportant. It's successful. And it gives work to photographers in a post-9/11 world where many sports photographers have dwindling resources to work.
As for soccer access, as well as access in any other sport, it's completely up to the teams and the leagues. As an MLS team photographer, I have access that no one else has or will ever have. It just so happens that I also work for Getty. So both the team, the MLS and Getty will get the benefits of my access. But it's completely up to the team what type of access I get. If another Getty photographer shows up at a Chicago Fire match, they will be restricted to the same photo areas as everyone else....the same areas I was restricted to before I became the team photographer.
As for the issue of "good" journalism...get off your high horses. Why hasn't anyone cried about Chicago Cubs coverage in the Chicago Tribune, who OWNS the team? Now that LOOKS like conflict of interest, don't you think? I doubt the sports editors at the Tribune would say their coverage is in conflict with the teams' interest. I would suggest they go out of their way to prove that there's no conflict of interest. But you can wonder, right?
Right now, there's an agency in the business that uses photographers on UPI credentials to provide their agency with content. At one time, Allsport got into college football games on magazine credentials to provide content. Everyone does what they have to do in a business full of weasels, right?
It's important that each one of us, whether employed by a newspaper, magazine, agency or working freelence, conducts our business successfully and with good ethics. Important decisions on being ethical AND successful are made by everyone on the food chain, no matter who you work for. But when push comes to shove, these are personal decisions that we all have to live with. I would respectfully suggest that it's more important to conduct your business they way YOU think it should be conducted and worry less about what others do. Hopefully, in the long run you, can be successful, ethical and learn to live with others in your business who you might perceive to be Satan but who are trying to survive in a marketplace with more ups and downs than the stock market in a Bush administration. Some will be successful, some will die on the vine, but what you do with your business is what you'll have to live with. |
|
John Todd, Photographer
|
Cupertino | CA | usa | Posted: 1:17 PM on 10.30.02 |
->> I would like to post the following from the WUSA regarding credentialing. This was sent out by the WUSA before the 2002
season as a response to credential requests. I am not going to read anything into the letter as it seems to say different things, but it can help shed light on the relationship between Getty and the WUSA.
-John Todd
"Allsport Photography (Getty Images) is in the
second year of a three-year contract with the Women's United Soccer Association to serve as the league's provider of photography and photographic services. Thus, with Allsport as the "Official Photographer of the WUSA," the league cannot legally credential any individual unless they fall under one of two categories:
1. The photographer has been assigned by a media outlet to photograph WUSA games or events for editorial purposes only.
2. The photographer has been contracted by a WUSA team or the league to photograph the game or event for that specific team or the league.
Unless the photographer falls under one of these two categories, the WUSA or its eight members teams will not credential that individual. The league
must protect its property and not allow freelance photographers or photo agencies to photograph WUSA games for the purpose of selling the WUSA photos for profit." |
|
Rich Pilling, Photographer
|
New York | NY | U.S.A. | Posted: 1:35 PM on 10.30.02 |
| ->> John: All the major sports leagues insist that you are working on assignment for a publication, the team or licensee in order to be credentialed. I'm sorry that you feel singled out for being denied a credential as a freelancer or stock photo agency. What would you do with the photos if you were credentialed as a "freelancer"? Try to sell them as stock? While many of you are upset that Getty/Allsport is wearing more than one "business hat", what says that that can't? I know that MLB, NFL, NBA and the NHL recognizes Getty/Allsport as a legit wire service. I also know that Getty/Allsport has a stock photo business. That is simply smart business. On another note; how do you feel about photographers getting credentials from newspapers or magazines and really not shooting on assignment for them? What happens is that a photographer is credentialed for a publication and then tries to sell his stock from these games. Which is worse, being up front as Getty/Allsport is or the later? |
|
John Todd, Photographer
|
Cupertino | CA | usa | Posted: 1:49 PM on 10.30.02 |
->> First of all,
I was only to trying to shed some actual facts on the subject with a policy of one of the leagues. I do not feel bad that I was not credentialed and I am not asking you to feel sorry for me for not being credentialed under my agencies name. Please try to keep your comments related to the facts of the thread instead of making inferences about individuals or agencies.
To answer your question, I do get requests for images from magazines and newspapers and I do sell these as editorial stock. This is why I need access, to fulfill editorial photo requests.
-John Todd |
|
Max Morse, Student/Intern, Assistant
|
Los Gatos | CA | | Posted: 3:27 PM on 10.30.02 |
->> I am currently a student at Brooks, and over the past few months we have been discussing ethics, and so I feel the need to say this. I think that everyone is reading into what each other is saying too much. No one is personally attacking anyone. However, putting the Christie/Fox fight aside, as well as any other instance where there could be an opportunity for criticism of the output of images, there seems to be a bigger issue at hand.
In school we learn that sometimes the public's conception of a situation is even more important than the reality of the actual situation. That being said, if the public looks at this deal in its simplest form, it could see a deal between Getty and the NBA. Regardless of the details of the agreement or how the agreement is handled by either side, the fact remains that Getty is receiving money from the NBA. And this fact is what the public cares about. Now, it seems to me that seeing this, the public could see a conflict of interest.
On the other hand, in defense of Getty, what public are we talking about? Who in the general public cares?
Truly a question for my ethics class. |
|
Tony Donaldson, Photographer
|
Sherman Oaks | CA | USA | Posted: 2:30 PM on 11.02.02 |
| ->> Just curious, since it's been over a week, were fight photos ever posted? |
|
Tom Ewart, Photographer
|
Fayetteville | AR | USA | Posted: 1:31 AM on 12.01.02 |
->> Being a intern at Allsport back when it's business practices were what I consider much better for photographers who were not staffers.
It is my opiion that Allsport uses the "wire service" title to help them gain access to events. It's good marketing on their part. When I was there Allsport had several sports publications that they supplied images that they would call to get thier own photographers credentals when schools would not recognies them on their own name.
With all these corperations grabbing all rights to images no matter if you are a staffer or not as Rick has campagined against for so long is a horriable thing for photographers, staff or not.
If anyone at a company like Allsport or AP can explain how signing away any additional income from photography of an event is anything but bad business pracitce for a freelance photographer....then I'm all ears.
Was it wrong to compensate a photographer for his work when it generated income by some sort of revene split?
Now, I don't argue that the staff photography positions that these companies may create are indeed jobs, but the way some of these companies do business with non-full time positions it is not benificial to photographers as a whole. Just like royality free photo disks may not be the most benifical to the industry.
And if you are a photographer who just shoots and doens't care or deal with the business side of photography then you may not realize the impact these business practices have on the whole industry. But what happens to you when your company decides that they can replace your position with a college student that is hungry for the experence and will work cheaper than you.
I know fellow photographers who made good money with photography with stock agencies and image resells before the rise of Getty, Corbis and the AP contract and are now strugling under these new business practices.
As long as we collectivelly turn our backs on what our industry is doing just because we may have a full-time positions, then things for photographers will only get worse.
I think that any company that treats their suppliers like these big companies in the photography industry are doing will eventially find that they will have cut off their own supply chain in the long run or at least substanially demish the quanity and quallity of such. And these photography companies will go the way of the big internet companies of the last several years who had bad business models. Even corperate giants like Microsoft will not contiune to support bad divisions that don't turn a profit. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
Amherst | MA | USA | Posted: 9:30 AM on 12.01.02 |
->> "I know fellow photographers who made good money with photography with stock agencies and image
resells before the rise of Getty, Corbis and the AP contract and are now strugling under these
new business practices. "
Tom:
Corbis does not have a work for hire contract, or a rights grabbing contract, in any way shape or form like AP, Reuters or Getty.
Corbis Sygma/SABA work on a 50/50 resale system, with a 70/30 (photog gets 70) system for assignments (70/30 does shift at times depending on assignment, sometimes 75/25) |
|
Tony Donaldson, Photographer
|
Sherman Oaks | CA | USA | Posted: 1:23 AM on 12.02.02 |
| ->> Has anyone checked to see if the photos in question on the above post were ever posted on Getty's Server? |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 3:24 AM on 12.02.02 |
->> Just as a side note, a client of mine the other day was asking/requesting that I send fight/altercation photos regardless of quality to the server because none were being posted to the Getty/Allsport site. These images ae in high demand believe it or not.
Hell, if I they don't post the images, more money for me right? |
|
Tony Donaldson, Photographer
|
Sherman Oaks | CA | USA | Posted: 3:47 AM on 12.02.02 |
->> More money for you for sure! And vis-a-vis Rick's point in starting this thread, sounds like the conflict of interest thought that keeps a lot of newspapers and others from using G/AS's images and the allegations that they have more of a PR deal seems more true now.
It is humanly possible that they didn't have ANY images of the fight, so perhaps we should be keeping score on this kind of thing here as a matter of open discussion? |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|
