Illinois photogs denied field credentials

How many papers have sold photos before the digital age when all a consumer had to do was point and click? I don't know the answer.

Back to the topic at hand. It's an interesting battle between athletic bodies and sports leagues against the media on who controls the dissemination of information.

 

For the most part, these are state associations that take our tax money through dues and other fees. They also take your money by staging tournaments featuring (again, for the most part) state schools playing sports against each other. In some (probably many) cases, the associations are "non-profit" groups bringing in tons of money and paying large salaries to executives, along with car allowances, etc.

They are not, as most (if not all) claim, in this for THE CHILDREN. If they are, they should have no problem with what newspapers do with photographs.

 

The first paper I worked at post-Navy was pre-digital and they made a rather brisk sale of photos, especially for athletics.

 

What ever happened to free enterprise? This is ridiculous. Just because the pros have stupid rules doesn't mean that everyone must adopt them. I'd propose the IPA launch a statewide ban on prep sports coverage for a few weeks. That ought to stir the shit enough to force the IHSA's hand on this.

To be fair, though, there sure seem to be a lot of cameras on the sidelines these days. It's one thing for a photog to shoot a game and then sell photos. But a lot of guys I run into almost exclusively shoot to sell the photos. I wonder how this affects some of the photogs I've met who shoot stuff for yearbooks. Technically, they're selling the photos. Are they also in jeopardy?

 

I agree with the high school associations on this one.

Newspapers have the right to staff a game and report on it but they do not have a right to make a profit off of selling photographs. The association sets forth the conditions for which they will give you a credential and if you don't want to follow those conditions, then turn it down.

Based on some of your comments, what would stop Freelance Photographer from staffing the games by himself (without working for a newspaper) and selling the photos? It doesn't matter what the reason is for taking the photos, it is the selling of the photos that the associations object to.

 

The RIAA is pretty much the same way over state finals, especially when photogs/TV guys want shots post game.
Last year at baseball, photogrpahers weren't allowed on field level and had to shoot from the stands. No one said anything, which blew me away,

 

Where I live, freelancers need to prove that they're working for someone before they're given credentials. I would think that's standard procedure. But then, you're Just An SID. ;-)

 

So how would you like it if all of those freelance people were taking the good photo spots because they intended to sell the photos online? Why should they be denied the opportunity to make a profit off the state tournament if, as many of you have stated, you feel you have the right to sell photos? Shouldn't they also have that right?

 

I guess I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from. The only people who should be on the sidelines with media credentials are those people who are journalists, whether they be print or broadcast or photo. This implies that they are actually reporting on the game. Some asshole with a camera who claims to be a freelance writer shouldn't be allowed on the sidelines unless he can provide proof that he's working as a photojournalist for a legitimate news enterprise. If they can't do that, they don't get a credential. That's what stops them from being on the sidelines. I believe that was your original question.

 

I really, really want to agree with you because I dislike state associations on general principles related to the bloated salaries, expense accounts, car allowances, etc.

However, it's getting pretty tough to decide who is and isn't legitimate media (witness the many threads on this board regarding bloggers in the last year). I no longer write for a print product, but a H.S.-dominated web site that I operate generates more traffic than most if not all) sites run by newspapers with circs under 50K in my half of the state. I'm pretty sure my traffic is even comparable to a few quasi-100K papers' sites.

By your definition ("legitimate news enterprise"), I'm not sure I could get credentialed for state tournament games.

 

It's a tough call. Those newspaper sites have people who walk outside and pick up the newspaper. Don't forget to figure them in when you're adding up the hits. They also have a long track record. You can't expect that the association is going to let any Tom, Dick or Harry with a domain name to stalk the sidelines. Give it a couple of years, though, and they'll have to let in sites that have developed some longevity.

 

I was leaning toward the newspapers' argument until this.

Now I'm beginning to think the state associations are right.

Disseminating information ... yes, that's what newspapers have done for ages.

But making a direct profit off the one-to-one sale of the process ... that's really not the original purpose of photojournalists at the game, is it?

And if that end of it has been contracted to another organization, a non-journalistic organization, then I'm thinking the state association has every right to protect that.

Now, the other end of this, and what I'm wrestling with, is the state organization making a profit from contracting out this service.