ethics question: photogs in ads

[HoopsMcCann]

so, i open up espn the magazine (they send it to me free, and, well, it's getting better. as much as i hate to say that)

anyway, there's a canon ad that says 'what the pros need to wear around their necks' and has pga press passes of scott halleran of getty images, someonese of getty images, chris stanford of golf world, michael cohen of wireimage, jamie squire of getty images, charles laberge of golf world, darren carroll of sports illustrated, gregory shamus of wireimage, stan badz of pga tour photo and someone named condon, who looks like he's also from 'pga tour photo'

the next page has a camera and says, 'what the pros choose to wear around their necks'

does the same code of journalism ethics pertain to photogs as it does to writers? should these people really be advertising for a camera?

i can see the guys from 'pga tour photo' because this is the official camera of the pga tour, and i'm guessing those guys aren't actually considered 'photojournalists' but more like 'photo pr guys' -- but wireimage, golf world, getty images and especially sports illustrated? of course, rick reilly has whored himself out to miller light, so i guess si doesn't care or could try to enforce it on carroll after reilly's ****, but still....

 

[audreyld]

I'm not certain it's terribly different from Canon using a shot by one of those guys and saying "Photog McGenius shot this with his trusty Canon."

Or a shot of the gallery at any major event. See all those white lenses? They're a walking Canon promotion.

I guess in the end, I don't have much of a problem, since these guys actually ARE using the product, and it's not an entity they would cover in the course of business.

 

[The_Plan]

I hate ESPN the Magazine. It looks horrible, reads horrible, has a distracting layout ... BLAH!!

But, with an ESPN the Magazine subscription, you do get free access to ESPN Insider -- and though many people aren't crazy about it, there's usually some pretty good stuff on it ... like Buster Olney, Peter Gammons ... basically, anybody that's worth a damn.

 

[blondebomber]

And the Non-Sequitir of the Night Award goes to ...

 

[Cadet]

You know, I spotted this ad the other day (SI, maybe?) and wondered the same thing.

It would be like Apple running an ad with the design staff ESPN the Mag and saying "they lay out this mag using Macs".

 

[spnited]

They didn't run photos of the photogs, the ran pix of their press passes, right?
Well folks, those press passes are the property of the PGA Tour, to do with a they see fit, and Canon is their official camera.
Using the photogs passes (and therfore thier names) is not a real problem or issue here.

 

[HoopsMcCann]

and their mugshots

i'm guessing they have to sign something over, but i'd be pissed if they did it with me. ****, my local 9 has a pass with my picture on it that i use in conjunction with my bbwaa card (notice it's only the new york guys who only wear their bbwaa card?)... anyway, i'd be pretty damn pissed if they used that in an ad for the local pizza place or whatever

 

[The Big Ragu]

They didn't run photos of the photogs, the ran pix of their press passes, right?
Well folks, those press passes are the property of the PGA Tour, to do with a they see fit, and Canon is their official camera.
Using the photogs passes (and therfore thier names) is not a real problem or issue here.

This is tricky. I am pretty sure that in order to use someone's name or likeness for commercial advertising purposes, you need their permission (and most people will insist on being compensated). For example, I have done magazine photo shoots, and I don't need anyone to sign a release to be used editorially. But I usually have them sign a release that allows us to use the photos for promotion--i.e. if their picture appears on a subscription card or in an ad for the magazine, we have crossed over to a non-editorial use and we legally need their permission.

It isn't like editorial usage, where anything is fair game. Now if the PGA tour makes photographers sign away the rights to their names as a condition of getting credentialed, then what you say would be right. But is that the case?

 

[f8andbethere]

It doesn't seem to seen as a real problem among our community. Two superbowls ago, Canon setup a posed shot with dozens of photographers, which ran as an ad after the SB. The only ethical problem sensed was the shot being staged but looking like it was not.

http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=14447

I don't see the harm in it, personally.

 

[HoopsMcCann]

if you don't see the problem, please never call yourself a "photojournalist" -- just a "photographer"

 

[Football_Bat]

THERE'S A SALE AT PENNEY'S!

Sorry, I thought this was a non-sequitir (sic) contest based on an earlier post.

 

[f8andbethere]

if you don't see the problem, please never call yourself a "photojournalist" -- just a "photographer"

Please, expand on your thoughts.

 

[tyler durden 71351]

Hell, the photographers I know, they've all got caps, polo shirts, T-shirts, bags, etc. with the name of camera companies on 'em. It's a damn staple of their wardrobes. I don't think that's too much different than the ESPN ad.

 

[Bruhman]

if you don't see the problem, please never call yourself a "photojournalist" -- just a "photographer"

Please, expand on your thoughts.

he can speak for himself, but i think he's suggesting any real photojournalist should have a problem with passing off staged shots as non-staged shots.

 

[HoopsMcCann]

actually i was suggesting a journalist shouldn't be a shill for some company