Newspapers, WIAA at odds over photos, video

True, auctions and some of these other things are not journalism.

But you won't convince me that slideshows, photo gallaries, what have you aren't. As I said earlier, it's a different type of journalism.

At my paper, all of these new-wave online initiatives are a huge priority. We cover a major Divi. I university, and after each game in football and men's basketball, we run extensive photo gallaries on our Web site — and the objective is not to simply make more money. It's to give a rabid fan base another avenue for digesting what happened in the game.

That is journalism. You don't have to like it, but it is journalism.

 

I just don't think this is anything more than the WIAA trying to make a buck. How many people really buy actual photos these days? With the online galleries, how many parents download those photos to their computer and e-mail them all over the place. It's a stupid, stupid policy from a messed-up organization.

Now if only they could devote as much attention to Pius' "coincidental" transfers ...

 

Keep in mind some websites partner up with companies which will put photos on mugs, mouse pads, t-shirts, etc. I dare say mom or dad might want to have a picture of junior celebrating a touchdown on a mug or whatnot. There is where the money is at.

 

The Wisconsin State Journal's Rob Hernandez touched on that topic last week:

http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=/wsj/2007/01/30/0701300034.php

No, I'm not Rob Hernandez

 

This is a good debate.

I'm simply bothered by the continuing trend of high school athletic associations making such deals -- including sponsorships of championships, as all of you have read -- with private companies. That said, though, I'm solidly on the side of the newspapers in this one. The WIAA has commandeered something that belonged to everyone and sold it as a private venture so it can get its share of the pie. It's their right, but I'm surprised they even allow newspapers in to shoot the tournaments at all.

As I understand it, the associations rationalize staging the Coca-Cola State Championship Shootout by saying that sponsorship covers costs and makes it possible to include more kids and make the fields even bigger. Where does it all end? I used to think it would be cool to have a national high school football championship, but it's become way too commercial for me.

 

If you were Rob, I'd ask you about your golf game! Anthony Witrado(sp?) did a great piece on the situation, as well. No .. I'm not him, either. It's an interesting story, and I wish somebody would blow the lid off of Classen and the mess he's made at Pius.

But I digress....

 

Exactly. And then those companies are in the same spot everyone's crucifying the WIAA for -- they're making a buck of high school kids' feats.

At least if the state association gets the money, you'd hope they would plow that money back into high school programs. And if they don't, there should be an investigation.

 

OK, all that said ...

What about not being to sell any photos whatsoever from state tournament events? That blows on a whole new level.
We've got a girls basketball team from a high-circulation town in our area that's a good bet to win a third consecutive state title in a month or so, and we're not even going to be able to sell reprints of the photos that run in the paper?

 

Unless, I'm guessing, you buy tickets and take shots from the stands. Bring a good zoom lens.

 

considering Gannett owns a huge chunk of the papers in WI, it couldn't happen to a better group of penny-pinchers.

 

If you wanna make some cash, play by PIAA rules.

Imagine if papers put up slideshows of MLB pics, then tried to sell those pics that didn't run in the paper -- without MLB's consent. There'd be a lawsuit, stat.

Yes, it's amateur vs. pros. But the WIAA has to protect its product.

Again, am I a fan of their policy? No. If you want to shoot the game merely for journalistic ROP purposes, no fee. But what do I know?

(And, yes, this has been a good debate, even if it sometimes leaves me wanting to pull all two remaining hairs off my head.)

 

wisportswriter, you can't sell photos taken at a Packers game, I'm sure, no matter how you print them in the paper. (Though you can, hint, hint, sell a reproduction of a newspaper page with said photo.)
The WIAA, like the NFL, is trying to control its property rights, whether we like it or not, and I'd say their lawyers would win. The WIAA, not the local high school you cover, stages the event, renting the Kohl Center, selling tickets and TV rights, etc., and has complete control over, as the announcers always say, "the pictures, descriptions and accounts of this game," etc.
Contrast the WIAA's stance -- use all you like in the paper, and take 'em for free, plus sell early round pix for a $100 license, if I read it correctly -- to what the LPGA tried to pull this time last year. The LPGA said they owned the pix (and the stories) produced by others, including AP. That's why next to nobody covered the second tournament of the season on the first day, and the LPGA relented, going to a standard agreement used in other pro sports.
Here's a question: Does the WIAA also limit or prohibit secondary editorial use? That may be taken to prohibit (until a fee is paid) using pictures in a book published by the newspaper to commemorate a title, if the book is sold separately.