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

Heh-heh. I love the T-P pulling out the altruistic family card...

Now, if they offered those prints for sale, but DIDN'T sell them to family members, you'd have a REAL story.

 

I think the point is that family members are the only ones who might be interested in buying them.

 

and this is why the high school association is missing the forest for the trees. if it sold photos - say they had a staff of photogs who would shoot an action shot of every event or every kid - the association would accomplish its goal of making more money. while the best photogs might work for the papers, the association could find quality freelancers and sell those pics to the families or kids or whomever wants to buy them.

 

We had a really good thread on this a few weeks ago - wasn't there a controversy in Wisconsin?

Anyway, I don't think newspapers, desperate though they may be, should be in the business of profiting off high school kids via a non-editorial avenue.

What's next? Prom pictures? Weddings and Bah Mitzvahs?

 

As I said earlier, and as a representative of one of the papers mentioned in this story, the profit is hardly worth getting excited about. Also, the next call we get asking us to cover (with reporter and photographers) a prom, a wedding or anything along those lines will be the first!

The photos are taken for the purposes of covering the event. They can't all be used, and if people want to buy them, I don't see the harm.

 

It's not just the profiting of pictures. Anyone who works at web-emphasized newspaper knows that photo galleries are immensely popular features on Web sites. The way newspaper journalism is heading, we MUST start gathering steam in the form of web clicks so we can start generating some advertising dollars on the Internet. It's the next frontier.

So to have this bush-league association tell us no, we can't do it, we need to send a middle finger up their way and just say "fine, no publicity for you"

 

Not sure that I agree with that Luggie...

Two papers ago, they launched a similar kind of feature in direct response to requests by parents and family members. And believe me, there were lots of requests. Community newspapers will generate a lot more local interest in these photographs than perhaps a big metro, but providing those prints aren't cheap or free. So why not recoup some of the costs and make a tiny profit at the same time?

Believe me, most papers aren't making that much money from these ventures.

And more to the point, this is a bigger issue of a state-funded athletics group attempting to dictate how media coverage is handled. If you open the door to this, it could embolden the group to take further steps.

 

Exactly. In all my years no paper at which I've worked has ever covered a wedding or a prom.

 

So here is what I don't get. Don't provide the prints. Let folks download a high-res version from the internet for a fee. They can print it themselves or go to kinkos or something.

 

OK...six of one, half a dozen of another.

The point still stands, though.

 

I'd write a story if they are letting the metro do whatever they want, but not the smaller locals. Frame it to the readers that their interests are being minimized. The policy is bad enough, but making exceptions for some and not others is crap.

 

Yep. Good for the papers that didn't sign the agreement. Leo's argument for a freelance photog working for whatever body is holding the tournament is a great one, too.