Newspapers, WIAA at odds over photos, video

See, I'm not really sure how I feel about that. My gut instinct is to think the WIAA can get bent...

How do you feel about the WIAA, VIP and When We Were Young teaming up to offer the compromise?

$100 to shoot regional and sectionals? And again, who would that go to?

 

If you want to be there in a solely journalistic function, no fee.

If you are trying to make bucks off the WIAA's tournament through thousands of hits on your Web site and sales of photos that don't even appear in the newspaper, you should pay up.

 

I definitely see your point, but will still have to chew on this a bit further...

 

Lord I hate to say this, but the state association's position is the right one.
The paper is looking to make money, and get around paying the fees that the other commercial photogs are paying.
While papers have always sold pics, they have always been the ones that were published, and not all of the ones taken at an event. Now the paper is throwing up an online gallery and calling it editorial so they can make some money.
Nothing wrong with the paper making money, but the state association has some established rules. All they are saying is follow the rules, like the other commercial photogs are following.

 

Not saying I agree with the premise, but..
It wouldn't cost papers anything to shoot the sections and regionals. But for UNLIMITED USE, it would be $100. Post on the website, sell parents unpublished game photos... that's in the $100...

 

I don't understand Wicked's argument that, just because something is put on the Web site, it's not a journalistic function.

Yes it is. Sure, it's a different type of journalism, because it's not limited by the space constraints of the printed page. However, slideshows and podcasts and all of the other avenues of delivering information that are all the rage these days are still journalism, especially when done by reputable news organizations. So, for me anyway, that argument doesn't wash.

 

But what is next, school's trying to do the same thing? It's a slippery slope. I say screw the WIAA, this is just another way for them to squeeze money out of people. And who does the money go to? I'd say the commissioner's vacation!

The Kentucky high school association tried to make papers sign a waiver saying they had ownership of all state chapionship event photos and papers couldn;t sell them. Don;t think that ever took, but I could be wrong, I"m not a shooter.

And these commercial companies aren't going to get the same photos the local papers will get, since papers will focus more on their team for the most part.

 

Agreed, it's just a better way to give the readers what they want. Which is sort of what we're supposed to be doing to a degree.

 

Hack, slideshows are being used for one purpose -- to make coin.
They are used to draw hits to the Web site, which I'm OK with.
They are used to sell photos, which is where the slippery slope begins.

The difference in podcasts is that they are not being sold for $15 or $20 per pop. The paper is cleaning up on that cash they collect for reprints, and they're not sharing it with anyone -- often, the photographers get screwed (at least nowadays, most papers own the equipment) and don't even get a cut.

When you are selling 10 reprints of a photo that ran in a paper, you are not talking big money.
When Johnny Doe's mom is buying 10 photos at $20 each because her son appears in 10 photos in the online gallery, and then you factor in Johnny's other relatives buying a couple pics each and multiply that by however many players appear in these gallery photos, that adds up to a decent sum.

If you are gonna use the WIAA tournament to make some money, is it that big of a deal to give the WIAA, say, 5 or 10 percent?
If you aren't gonna post them in slideshows, you shouldn't pay a dime, or $100. I do disagree with the flat rate deal.

In a somewhat related topic, the 49ers and/or Joe Montana's people sued the Mercury-News about 20 years ago for using Montana's image on a promo poster. The ultimate court ruling -- I don't remember how high up the court food chain this went -- was that the photo was OK to use, provided it was used in a promotional (i.e. not money-making) manner.

 

Do I pick up the sports section to see 30 pics from the WIAA basketball championships? No.
Do I pick up the sports section to read about what happened? Sure. To see an interesting design? Sure, since I'm a newspaper geek.

But to say slideshows are giving readers more of what they want, I don't know about that.

You guys are tossing slideshows and podcasts into one big multimedia pile. As I said in the other post, papers aren't making money off those podcasts. The end result of the slideshows is that they're opening up possibility of making a decent bit of money.

 

Well, at our paper, our online galleries are very popular. People love photos of their kids, grandkids, etc.

And most people could care less how creative a design is, as long as their team is in there, featured prominently and the kids' names and stats are correct.

So we should give an organization money so we can make money ourselves? Like i said, slippery slope.

 

Exactly. The people who will spend money to buy the photos.

It is accepted practice that our papers try to make money through coverage of the news.
When we go the extra step and introduce a new product that is created solely to make money, then we have issues.
Are TV stations selling unused B roll from state tournament games online? No.
Radio/TV outlets that broadcast high school playoff games, ostensibly to make some money as well as serving the community, often pay a rights fee. Depending on the state, that fee gives the station the right to sell copies of the broadcast/telecast.
Again, Bob, we are not using this product in a true journalistic sense. Just because it appears on our Web sites doesn't make it journalism. We have lots of things that pop up on our Web sites nowadays -- auctions, other stuff -- that isn't journalism.
And again, if the paper isn't looking to sell photos through their slideshows and only wants to sell photos that run in the paper, which is a legit journalistic enterprise, they shouldn't pay a dime.