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

This is always a danger, ike.

I don't know where you're based, so I certainly can't say you're wrong. For where you are, you may be quite right.

But in my area, there are loads of sports fans who go to high school games without any connection to the athletes. Our closest D-I school is 1:15 away; our closest "big" D-I school is two hours away; our closest major-league sports is two hours away. And we aren't exactly Podunk, either.

This is the best competitive sports our people can find a short drive away.

 

I have mixed feeling about this as a photog. At my paper, we do put photos online. Not really for extra editorial content, but pretty much just as a commercial venture. On the other hand, I've worked as an event photographer - and had exclusive contracts. Nothing worse than the event coordinators not enforcing contracts that say that you are the only one who can sell photographs - and in this case, newspapers are competition.

 

For me, the bottom line is it's a public event, so whatever the media generates that remains unused -- notes, quotes, photos) still belongs to the media, not some third party.

 

Heck, my shop just gives the photos away.

 

Our state association wouldn't let parents take pictures of the volleyball state champions posing for a team photo because they had sold "exclusive rights" to a photo company. I have a real problem with telling parents they can't take their own pictures, that they have to buy them from the state association.

Rightfully, after the official photographer finished his photos, the parents made the kids set up again and took their own photos anyway.

And all the while, us lowly print reporters had to way 45 minutes after the game was over to get quotes (in fact, a couple of us pulled the MVP away right after match and were trying to interview her when the state association director pulled her away and excoriated us for holding up the medal ceremony ... as if we give a shit).

 

I'd have had words with that director...something like,
"See this pica pole? I'm going to see how many column inches it is from here to your colon!"

 

That's how I see it. I don't know how anybody, not even with a bunch of legal B.S., could successfully argue anything else.

 

I hope Mr. Picture Company Photog got the business end from the volleyball parents. Those parents generally have sons on the wrestling team.

 

Do you usually carry a pica pole with you everywhere you go? ;D

 

Why is this thread much more pro-newspapers than the last one?

http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/37404/

If you want to be cynical, fine. But the newspaper I work for and most of the ones in this area do not make that much off these photos. This is a bad idea for all involved, except for the photo companies that charge much more and have a larger inventory of photos than a newspaper.

 

shot - i think you lost site of who's denying full coverage of a public event, funded by taxpayer money when you made that post.

for me, if someone wants to put stipulations on allowing coverage of those events, i'm fine with rescheduling folks to events where my paper gets the best bang for its buck.

 

I'll bet a third of SportsJournalists.com members are asking what the hell a pica pole is.

Why not sell photos on the Web? Selling pictures is another revenue stream (our paper's realistic goal is to clear $100,000 a year) and helps support another revenue stream by getting the hits to the Web. The pictures are our property, and we are providing a service to our readers by giving them the opportunity to buy photos that most would have no ability to take themselves. I know this because I get about 20 reprint requests a week. This profession has refused to adapt to change for too long of a time. Finding ways to properly use the Web and getting traffic there is only one example.
To say it's wrong to sell pictures not published is wrong itself.