Photogs refuse to sign consent form at prep event; papers don't shoot event

The papers went without the photographs once access was limited.
You think if they were available online, the papers would PAY for them?
You're missing the root of the argument.

 

Telling a newspaper what it can do with photographs that are not printed on paper violates its right to determine content, she said.
“We’re the people who ought to be able to determine what photographs are used and where they are used,” Spurlock said. “That’s our choice and our responsibility.”

Those are the best arguments we have. Just because a paper doesn't thave room for 20 photographs, they shouldn't be able to sell them anyway. In this age of new media and online papers, who is determine what the paper can and can't use. Certainly not a state HS association who culd careless aboutr media in the first place.

 

Well typed.

 

You shouldn't be torn on this. Another example of outsiders trying to limit media. And this is high schools, no less.

Fuck 'em.

 

I see one of the newspapers ran a story on this. I hope all of them did. And the AP picked it up. And the papers which signed the form ran the AP story.
By the way, I'm betting Ricky Bobby allowed his picture to be taken for the story. From the stands, of course.

Ed's note: The idiot is Tommy Henry, not Ricky Bobby.

 

Photo galleries can significantly enhance the coverage of an event because they provide something far beyond what's available in the printed product (so do additional sidebars written exclusively for the web edition, which we also do on occasion, or additional notes in blogs).

That's serving the best interest of our readers.

 

I see some good points. But the righteous indignation can go. Remove that from your arguments; it's counter-productive.

We've tried that tack before, and we just wind up looking like pompous asses.

 

Disagree shot. On the web sites, photos get hits. Papers want the hits.

I doubt they sell many of them, so that's silly. Most papers charge too damn much.

 

We have that situation in my area. It began last fall.

I initially refused to sign the form, and had a big discussion with the director of our state's athletic association. The thrust of my argument is that since they use public facilities funded by taxpayer money, they have no right to deny us access (unless games are at private facilities, such as those held at local private colleges or the minor league baseball park nearby).

Unfortunately, two things undercut my stance that we would not sign it: The major metro paper in the area didn't oppose it because, frankly, they didn't have to. They simply went to the events without signing the form and the director let them in, no questions asked. And second, the other smaller papers all signed it.

My boss told me she would bring it up to the publisher and lawyers were supposed to get involved, however, I never heard back from them.

So without anyone to back me up, I was forced to decide between not covering the events at all (we weren't allowed into the event with a pass and we couldn't get a pass without signing the form), or giving in.

I decided it would be a disaster for our paper not to cover the postseason, so I relented and signed the form. I'm still not particularly happy about it.

 

Next time, pern, if they pull that on you, cross out that paragraph and sign it.

 

That's actually what I did. The director then called me to tell me they refused to give us credentials unless I sign it in its entirety.

When I did eventually sign it, I left it with the proviso that we were signing the agreement reluctantly for the stated resasons and have the right to pull out of the agreement at any time. I was hoping that soon enough our publisher was going to get involved. He never did.

 

More on this story...

http://www.nola.com/sports/t-p/index.ssf?/base/sports-29/117256137763720.xml&coll=1

http://www.theadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070227/SPORTS/702270342/1006