New twist in IHSA-IPA pissing match

[PTOWN]

I actually don't see too much of a problem with the IHSA's demands. Papers don't make money off selling photos and that is the ony thing the IHSA is trying to prohibit. I believe online galleries are still OK. On the other hand it's very in line with how difficult this organization has become. They have become very unfriendly to the press over the years, and they are sending statements to high schools that let's say just show their side of things. I mean they make a profit off tax-payer funded public schools. And with this whole photo thing, the IHSA is also kind of exploiting the kids (turning a profit off the accomplishments of teens). I think the IHSA needs to put things in perspective here.

 

[DanOregon]

I wish I wasn't seeing a future when schools and athletic associations had "official live bloggers" of events and sought to drive eyeballs primarily to their own websites for "official" coverage of games etc.
If the strict constructionists on the Supreme Court are as strict as they say they are, they could decide that freedom of "the press" doesn't translate to the blogosphere.

 

[buzzerbeater]

So a couple of you are saying a newspaper doesn't own the photos taken by its photographers?
I disagree.
Newspapers aren't protesting this because they are getting rich off selling the reprints. Hardly. The point is the IHSA should not be able to tell us what we can do with photos we own.
And for the IHSA to take this righteous stance is laughable. They are the ones concerned with lining their own pockets.
Past IHSA administrators actually cared about the students and took seriously their role as stewards of high school sports in Illinois. The current administrators clearly care only about themselves.

 

[Cousin Jeffrey]

The Chicago Reader chimes in

http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/hottype/080207/

 

[doubledown68]

What the IHSA should really be ashamed of is ruining a perfectly good state tournament structure. A close second is the holier-than-thou attitude they flaunt.

 

[Italian_Stallion]

I still don't understand the difference between a glossy action shot on photo paper and story after story on newsprint. Both are used to generate profit.

The only difference I can find is that the IHSA decided it could sell exclusive photo rights to something it doesn't own, the athletes. I think therein lies the hook.

Look, IHSA is a sanctioning body that organizes and manages the sports in the state. But it doesn't own the sports. The schools own the sports, and the taxpayers own the schools.

These sports take place in the public domain, and no government-supported organization has a right to determine who does or doesn't get to take and sell photos. It should be free game to anyone. Of course, only the media gets field access. So the average Joe would have to take his photos from the stands.

Undoubtedly, some newspapers and Web sites are abusing the privilege by making the photo-gathering, and not the photo journalism, the focus of their appearances at games. But IHSA needs to find another way to address that, because they're going to lose this battle.

Frankly, I feel the same way about college sports, but there are a few added issues there.

If anyone wants to poke holes in my logic here, I'd love to do some patchwork. I know my argument isn't perfect, but I think it's on the money.

 

[derwood]

I wish I wasn't seeing a future when schools and athletic associations had "official live bloggers" of events and sought to drive eyeballs primarily to their own websites for "official" coverage of games etc.
If the strict constructionists on the Supreme Court are as strict as they say they are, they could decide that freedom of "the press" doesn't translate to the blogosphere.

NCAA has already done this.

 

[FishHack76]

This is the same organization that (I've always heard) spent $500,000 in legal fees attempting to sue the NCAA over "March Madness."

 

[Clerk Typist]

This is the same organization that (I've always heard) spent $500,000 in legal fees attempting to sue the NCAA over "March Madness."

Not sure if that was the number, but there was a suit, because the term originated in Illinois, in a poem, actually. Chicago sportscaster Brent Musburger began using it when CBS got the NCAA Tournament, and the NCAA liked it so much, it took it. Just like it took Final Four, which Curry Kirkpatrick of SI came up with in the early 70s.
It's hard to root for anyone with these outfits.
IHSA now uses the term "America's Original March Madness," which was part of the settlement.

 

[Italian_Stallion]

I hear the Catholic church has copyrighted Hail Mary after it became common football vernacular. God has good lawyers.

 

[Lyman_Bostock]

What the IHSA should really be ashamed of is ruining a perfectly good state tournament structure. A close second is the holier-than-thou attitude they flaunt.

Hear, hear.

 

[NISB35]

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHH!

http://www.ihsa.org/announce/2007-08/2008-02-12.htm

Just by looking at the title, it seems the IHSA is just plain ticked off.

---

Back to the original post about "news at hand", it may also be a restriction on certain things such as: notebooks, columns, and such stories about photog concerns. I don't know.