I done been violated, I think

[93Devil]

Only way this is OK is in the unlikely scenario that the site subscribes to AP -- and I'm guessing it doesn't.

If an SID from Texas Tech sent out a release saying its players were doing a charity car wash, they would not care if a .com found the release on the floor of the bus. If it was published, that is all they care about.

 

[wicked]

If an SID from Texas Tech sent out a release saying its players were doing a charity car wash, they would not care if a .com found the release on the floor of the bus. If it was published, that is all they care about.

When I worked at a suburban daily, we'd see listings from the bigger paper a few towns over or weeklies on the fringes of our coverage area (we covered a wide swath of territory) and sometimes come up with good story ideas from them -- but we'd call the place first, just to make sure the information was accurate and that we could use it.

Slappy used the term "press release," but I don't even know if it's the right usage of the term. It was a story for limited distribution to a handful of outlets. It's not like every paper in the state received it -- only dailies involved in selecting the award and AP.

 

[shotglass]

You're missing the point, Slap. The .com IS giving you something -- more exposure of your group's award, further validating it among the high school football cognoscenti. The .com is deeming it newsworthy, passing it along to its readers. Maybe you don't like how they cover the sport, but that's irrelevant. Why would you not want the widest possible exposure of your award?

There's what I don't get. Do you NOT want your award publicized? If you do, take the publicity where you can get it!

 

[writestuff1]

Semi-related question: Suppose you are writing a book on the history of the Crabtree Bowl. Let's say while recounting somethiing that happened in the 1963 game, you use a quote what was published in the Los Angeles Post. The quote is from one of the coaches from the postgame press conference. The game was attended by tons of newspapers and was nationally televised. Isn't that sort of like public domain stuff? Same situation, but it's from a feature story by the L.A. Post leading up to the game, so it's "exclusive" to the paper. Is it fair game? In both situations, you don't cite the Post as in, "Coach Smith told the Los Angeles Post," and you don't use footnotes in this specific instance. However, in the forward of your book you list the Post and all sources from which you obtained information. Are you OK?

 

[slappy4428]

You're missing the point, Slap. The .com IS giving you something -- more exposure of your group's award, further validating it among the high school football cognoscenti. The .com is deeming it newsworthy, passing it along to its readers. Maybe you don't like how they cover the sport, but that's irrelevant. Why would you not want the widest possible exposure of your award?

Other stories on this site say "from combined reports"; this says it's their own, including the quote.
Since this award has been presented for more than 25 years by the state's sports writers and is the only one of its kind in the state, am not too worried about the validation. Nor am I concerned about attribution to me.
Once again, and I'll slow it down for the visually impared.
I think that the site's passing off work as its own, including quotes, at an event it didn't attend is bull****. Another person shot photos for this site from the state finals; his two agreed-to requests were getting paid and credit for the photos. Can't speak to getting paid yet, but the photos say "footballblab.com" without his credit.

 

[buckweaver]

Semi-related question: Suppose you are writing a book on the history of the Crabtree Bowl. Let's say while recounting somethiing that happened in the 1963 game, you use a quote what was published in the Los Angeles Post. The quote is from one of the coaches from the postgame press conference. The game was attended by tons of newspapers and was nationally televised. Isn't that sort of like public domain stuff? Same situation, but it's from a feature story by the L.A. Post leading up to the game, so it's "exclusive" to the paper. Is it fair game? In both situations, you don't cite the Post as in, "Coach Smith told the Los Angeles Post," and you don't use footnotes in this specific instance. However, in the forward of your book you list the Post and all sources from which you obtained information. Are you OK?

As long as you list that you did obtain information from that source, I think it's fair game. While I think it's very, very important to document your work for historical nonfiction, it bogs down the book if you cite every source as you write it.

 

[txsportsscribe]

Semi-related question: Suppose you are writing a book on the history of the Crabtree Bowl. Let's say while recounting somethiing that happened in the 1963 game, you use a quote what was published in the Los Angeles Post. The quote is from one of the coaches from the postgame press conference. The game was attended by tons of newspapers and was nationally televised. Isn't that sort of like public domain stuff? Same situation, but it's from a feature story by the L.A. Post leading up to the game, so it's "exclusive" to the paper. Is it fair game? In both situations, you don't cite the Post as in, "Coach Smith told the Los Angeles Post," and you don't use footnotes in this specific instance. However, in the forward of your book you list the Post and all sources from which you obtained information. Are you OK?

why on earth would you want to write about the 63 crabtree bowl? that was such a snoozefest.

 

[accguy]

Slappy,

It seems as if you're trying play both sides of the equation on this one. You're being a PR person and a reporter.

I agree with the above poster who said you should be happy that the picked up the story and didn't screw anything up. That's generally a good thing for your organization.

 

[lone star scribe]

I'm not visually impared. Or impaired. I get the picture. You want to exclude the .com. The .com in response is saying, "F--- Slappy, he didn't send us the release, but we can get it from his rag's Web site."

As for the difference between "Staff Reports" and "From Combined Reports," that's too fine a hair for me to split.

Want to tweak them? Call them and say innocently, "Oh, I didn't think you'd be interested in a newspaper association award. Would you like to buy a ticket and attend next year?"

 

[slappy4428]

Slappy,

It seems as if you're trying play both sides of the equation on this one. You're being a PR person and a reporter.

I agree with the above poster who said you should be happy that the picked up the story and didn't screw anything up. That's generally a good thing for your organization.

I see you're point, but don't agree.
The website, which has begged for free content all year, took a press release it wasn't sent from an event it didn't cover and passed it off as its own. Not wanting publicity for the event wasn't the issue.
The footballblab.com staff didn't report on it because it wasn't there. The attribution is dishonest.

 

[accguy]

The thing about a press release is that it is a press release, meaning it is available to anyone and everyone. That's what a press release is. Once you put out a press release you've given up control of the message/story.

Back before every school/team posted releases on their website, there were times when I had the beat writer from another school in the conference fax me a release that their school put out. Would that have been wrong in your eyes?

And my paper often takes releases from a college's SID office, runs them and calls them staff reports.

 

[SoCalScribe]

As far as I'm concerned, any press release is fair game no matter who finds it and how. The point of PR is to get a message out in as many channels as possible. You can't distribute a press release and then get pissed that someone used it even if they weren't on your e-mail list. Did your PR say "only for selected papers X, Y and Z?" I doubt it...therefore, who can complain that A, B and C also picked up on it? Unexpected circulation is a wet dream in the PR world.

Yes, it's mild bull**** to use the quotes from the paper to augment the PR sent out by the paper's employee, but when you send out a press release -- which by definition is begging for media outlets to repurpose it -- you have precious few rights. If it's a serious problem for you personally, either don't send out PR next time or get someone else to do it.

 

[Stitch]

I'm thinking the member organizations who ran your release are lazy for not doing your work or am I reading too much into why you don't like the .com running your stuff. What you're doing is not right in my book. You're trying to get publicity for something that you cover. Obvious conflict. And newspapers do it all the time.

 

[forever_town]

It seems a bit of much ado about nothing.

When I did a story a few weeks back about a mayor seeking answers after his house got busted into by a SWAT team, I saw the competitor paper do a similar one a few weeks later. Written differently at first glance, but still about the same thing.

It was too different for me to call and say "yo ... HOLD UP!"

 

[slappy4428]

I'm thinking the member organizations who ran your release are lazy for not doing your work or am I reading too much into why you don't like the .com running your stuff. What you're doing is not right in my book. You're trying to get publicity for something that you cover. Obvious conflict. And newspapers do it all the time.

Yeah, too much there.
The release was sent to the member papers who were not in attendance; since we had already announced 14 minor awards two weeks earlier, the only mystery was Mr. Football. Realistically, it was down to one of three candidates and their papers were there.

Not really a conflict on my part; I was the point guy all season for the football stuff (poll, players of the week and like) for the state sportswriters association. And the state sportswriters association was the organization.
There were two things sent out last night; A release with no quotes right after the announcement and a story with quotes for the member papers who wanted the story and were unable to attend. The release AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE had no quotes. None. Zero. Nada.
Whether or not it ran in any other paper in the state didn't matter to me (some did, most used AP which ran its own story; My point was this .com took the story it was not sent, used quotes it didn't have access to and passed it off as if it were there. And it pissed me off because the .com decided to use free content it wasn't entitled to.

 

[jfs1000]

If you are writing a release it immediately becomes open information. Unless you embargoed the release for a select few, if it is out there it is fair game.

As long as your quotes were on a distributed release I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

BTW, why wouldn't you be thrilled to have them use your release?

 

[slappy4428]

If you are writing a release and selecting outlets to choose to send it, it immediately becomes open information. Unless you embargoed the release for a select few, if it is out there it is fair game.

As long as your quotes were on a distributed release I think you don't have a leg to stand on.

BTW, why wouldn't you be thrilled to have them use your release?

OK, AGAIN. Quotes were NOT (that's NOT) in the release; quotes were in a story distributed to member papers who have contributed to the cooperative during the season. This website was not a member of the cooperative.
Background material is not propietary; quotes are. but again QUOTES WERE NOT IN THE RELEASE.
But the website pawned off the material INCLUDING QUOTES as if it were their own. It was not sent the information or the quotes, yet it was posted on the website as if it were there.

 

[slappy4428]

The story contained material that was in the press release; the quote was in a separate bylined story -- which was not the one used on the website....

 

[Stitch]

So are you writing these stories as a reporter covering the event and other newspapers are using it or are you covering it as the PR person for this organization? I'm confused as to your role here.

You can't both cover the event as a reporter and then serve as an official.

 

[Point of Order]

1. This is not about publicity for an award. This is about journos helping out one another in getting stuff in the paper.

2. Sounds to me like someone who has truly hit rock bottom got shut out of getting the shared info because no one likes him, so he decides to rip off the material (or see below) anyway with the expectation that no one would ever call him on it; thus further ostracizing himself from said group.

But, my question, did he rip it off a web site or did someone in the consortium send him the story?