Photographers restricted again.

[lanef]

Paying with my tax dollars gives me unrestricted rights. Well no.
I pay road tax, still I am not allowed to 200kmh in the city although
I paid for that road. Photographers usually think they are above the
law. In reality there are rules they have to obey. Obeying rules is
good education for many people.
--
Windmills, just do it.

I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone is saying there should be no
rules. I think, for the most part, they are saying they should be
rational and just.

--

Neither Steffi nor Chatterjee understand that. They constantly stand
for authoritarianism over any rational approach.

It's a shame the Taliban state is no more otherwise I would suggest they go and live there.

 

[Charles Self]

Only men with the right background and correct set of moral values
deserve my respect. Nothing liberal qualifies.
--

Steffi doesn't respect me! Thank you, God.

--
Charlie Self

Sir, I don't think you are a member of some unique category or group
of people. There may be others who shall remain nameless at this
time.

Given what she respects, that group would include most people I know, possibly all.

--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com

 

[Charles Self]

Can't they shoot pix for their publictions. It seems htey just want
to stop SELLING of photos.
--

Usually, that's fine for staff photographers. If you're a freelancer, and especially at high school games, you HAVE to have other markets in mind to make it pay.

As a freelancer, I find it helpful even at races and selling to national magazines to have two or more markets. For a race weekend (I don't do NASCAR), I may be paying for a motel for three nights, meals for four days, driving a bunch of miles, and then working on the photos when I get home. Call that five days. I then need at least a day's research, and another for writing time and to assemble the photos into something other than a mass.

Seven days. So the magazine pays, for example, $1,500. Expenses run something on the order of $700.

Great money. In 1968. A second market for some aspect of the course, people, or cars is almost essential.

Of course, that's not a high school football game either, but the differences are a matter of scale.

--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com

 

[Bill Randall]

dh steffi wrote:
I firmly believe that authoritarianism equals rationality.

Veekau Cjatterkee (Mr) wrote:
I am agreeing with this. There is too much left wing nonsense in this
world. Much of it is old fashioned hippie talk lacking in values and
morality.

I thought by now, over 24 hours, that you would have resonded to the replies to your post. Perhaps the authoritarian rationality has been ... misplaced?

--

FINE PRINT: I reserve the right to be wrong. Should you prove me wrong, I reserve the right to change my mind.

 

[brent collins]

I have plenty left, but you obviously don't. Way to stick to the point. Nice try Dave.

Chato wrote:
If it wasn't me saying

this, you wouldn't be taking this absurd and STUPID position.

Anything left?

 

[CBenson]

Can't they shoot pix for their publictions. It seems htey just want
to stop SELLING of photos.
--

Usually, that's fine for staff photographers. If you're a freelancer,
and especially at high school games, you HAVE to have other markets
in mind to make it pay.

Okay, but does the IHSA have (or should they have) an obligation to allow photographers make it pay.

--
Regards,
Carl

 

[Chato]

Can't they shoot pix for their publictions. It seems htey just want
to stop SELLING of photos.
--

Usually, that's fine for staff photographers. If you're a freelancer,
and especially at high school games, you HAVE to have other markets
in mind to make it pay.

Okay, but does the IHSA have (or should they have) an obligation to
allow photographers make it pay.

--
Regards,
Carl

I think they have the obligation to optimise everything for the parents and kids, not to nickel and dime around...

We hired these people. We pay their saleries, they're supposed to directly serve our interests.

Dave

 

[CBenson]

Can't they shoot pix for their publictions. It seems htey just want
to stop SELLING of photos.
--

Usually, that's fine for staff photographers. If you're a freelancer,
and especially at high school games, you HAVE to have other markets
in mind to make it pay.

Okay, but does the IHSA have (or should they have) an obligation to
allow photographers make it pay.

--
Regards,
Carl

I think they have the obligation to optimise everything for the
parents and kids, not to nickel and dime around...

We hired these people. We pay their saleries, they're supposed to
directly serve our interests.

Dave

But what are "our interests?" Some think our interests include giving parents and students control over access to the student's images. Some think leting public schools fund programs and events through the workings of the free-market is in our best interests.

So given the competing interests, should a public entity be able to restrict photographs obtained by press photographers to news uses?

Are you saying that the IHSA should make a different decision? Or are you saying that it should be illegal (or that it is unconstitutional) for the IHSA to put these restrictions on the photographers?

--
Regards,
Carl

 

[Chato]

Can't they shoot pix for their publictions. It seems htey just want
to stop SELLING of photos.
--

Usually, that's fine for staff photographers. If you're a freelancer,
and especially at high school games, you HAVE to have other markets
in mind to make it pay.

Okay, but does the IHSA have (or should they have) an obligation to
allow photographers make it pay.

--
Regards,
Carl

I think they have the obligation to optimise everything for the
parents and kids, not to nickel and dime around...

We hired these people. We pay their saleries, they're supposed to
directly serve our interests.

Dave

But what are "our interests?" Some think our interests include
giving parents and students control over access to the student's
images. Some think leting public schools fund programs and events
through the workings of the free-market is in our best interests.

So given the competing interests, should a public entity be able to
restrict photographs obtained by press photographers to news uses?

Are you saying that the IHSA should make a different decision? Or
are you saying that it should be illegal (or that it is
unconstitutional) for the IHSA to put these restrictions on the
photographers?

--
Regards,
Carl

I grew up with local High School events being covered by the press. In Brooklyn, you could find this coverage in the local "sections" of the paper. In small towns upstate, the local papers gave this more coverage than they did professional or college sports.

Everyone loved it!

I have to ask, "What competing interests?" I don't think it's a question of "illegal." It WOULD be illegal to ban photography from the stands, which is why they DON'T ban photography from the stands - They certainly sound like they would it they could.

But yes, I believe this is wrong, and the State School boards should ban it. Of course it's not MY school board. So it's a problem for the locals to deal with or let slide.

Dave

 

[CBenson]

Can't they shoot pix for their publictions. It seems htey just want
to stop SELLING of photos.
--

Usually, that's fine for staff photographers. If you're a freelancer,
and especially at high school games, you HAVE to have other markets
in mind to make it pay.

Okay, but does the IHSA have (or should they have) an obligation to
allow photographers make it pay.

--
Regards,
Carl

I think they have the obligation to optimise everything for the
parents and kids, not to nickel and dime around...

We hired these people. We pay their saleries, they're supposed to
directly serve our interests.

Dave

But what are "our interests?" Some think our interests include
giving parents and students control over access to the student's
images. Some think leting public schools fund programs and events
through the workings of the free-market is in our best interests.

So given the competing interests, should a public entity be able to
restrict photographs obtained by press photographers to news uses?

Are you saying that the IHSA should make a different decision? Or
are you saying that it should be illegal (or that it is
unconstitutional) for the IHSA to put these restrictions on the
photographers?

--
Regards,
Carl

I grew up with local High School events being covered by the press.
In Brooklyn, you could find this coverage in the local "sections" of
the paper. In small towns upstate, the local papers gave this more
coverage than they did professional or college sports.

Everyone loved it!

I don't think this is an issue of whether or not its good or legal for local papers to cover high school sports. Most everyone agrees that is good for the photographs to be used in the next day's paper. The question is: What else can the papers do with the photographs?

I have to ask, "What competing interests?" I don't think it's a
question of "illegal." It WOULD be illegal to ban photography from
the stands, which is why they DON'T ban photography from the stands -
They certainly sound like they would it they could.

I think you're wrong. I think the IHSA could ban photography of the games if such a rule had some reason behind it and was applied equally to everyone. Seems to me it would be just like banning photography in courtrooms. However, no one wants photography banned from the games - as you say everyone loves it.

If this is really about the IHSA trying to control the press coverage, then I do think they should be stopped. But it doesn't sound like it to me. It sounds to me more like the IPA is picking this fight to try to establish that newspapers have a constitutional right to maintain additional revenue streams from their photographs.

--
Regards,
Carl

 

[Chato]

But what are "our interests?" Some think our interests include
giving parents and students control over access to the student's
images. Some think leting public schools fund programs and events
through the workings of the free-market is in our best interests.

So given the competing interests, should a public entity be able to
restrict photographs obtained by press photographers to news uses?

Are you saying that the IHSA should make a different decision? Or
are you saying that it should be illegal (or that it is
unconstitutional) for the IHSA to put these restrictions on the
photographers?

--
Regards,
Carl

I grew up with local High School events being covered by the press.
In Brooklyn, you could find this coverage in the local "sections" of
the paper. In small towns upstate, the local papers gave this more
coverage than they did professional or college sports.

Everyone loved it!

I don't think this is an issue of whether or not its good or legal
for local papers to cover high school sports. Most everyone agrees
that is good for the photographs to be used in the next day's paper.
The question is: What else can the papers do with the photographs?

I have to ask, "What competing interests?" I don't think it's a
question of "illegal." It WOULD be illegal to ban photography from
the stands, which is why they DON'T ban photography from the stands -
They certainly sound like they would it they could.

I think you're wrong. I think the IHSA could ban photography of the
games if such a rule had some reason behind it and was applied
equally to everyone. Seems to me it would be just like banning
photography in courtrooms. However, no one wants photography banned
from the games - as you say everyone loves it.

No, it would be unConstitutional. It's a completely public event, totally funded by the tax payer. Clearly they would if the could.

Moreover, the idea that this is a free market event doesn't exactly move me. Last time I checked the word "Public" still has a certain meaning. Schools are not profit making institutions. Schools are not a business. If they were, you would have private schools - period. It may be that that's what some people do indeed want. But that's another question entirely.

If this is really about the IHSA trying to control the press
coverage, then I do think they should be stopped. But it doesn't
sound like it to me. It sounds to me more like the IPA is picking
this fight to try to establish that newspapers have a constitutional
right to maintain additional revenue streams from their photographs.

I think the IHSA is simply trying to pick up some funding. Not much, which is why I say "nickel and dime." But I'm sure that they are raising a little bit here and a little bit there, from other little tricks. After all funding for schools is going down both on a Federal and State level, and athletic programs are often the first victim.

I don't disapprove of them seeking to raise money - Simply not this way of doing it.

Dave

Regards,
Carl

 

[CBenson]

But what are "our interests?" Some think our interests include
giving parents and students control over access to the student's
images. Some think leting public schools fund programs and events
through the workings of the free-market is in our best interests.

So given the competing interests, should a public entity be able to
restrict photographs obtained by press photographers to news uses?

Are you saying that the IHSA should make a different decision? Or
are you saying that it should be illegal (or that it is
unconstitutional) for the IHSA to put these restrictions on the
photographers?

--
Regards,
Carl

I grew up with local High School events being covered by the press.
In Brooklyn, you could find this coverage in the local "sections" of
the paper. In small towns upstate, the local papers gave this more
coverage than they did professional or college sports.

Everyone loved it!

I don't think this is an issue of whether or not its good or legal
for local papers to cover high school sports. Most everyone agrees
that is good for the photographs to be used in the next day's paper.
The question is: What else can the papers do with the photographs?

I have to ask, "What competing interests?" I don't think it's a
question of "illegal." It WOULD be illegal to ban photography from
the stands, which is why they DON'T ban photography from the stands -
They certainly sound like they would it they could.

I think you're wrong. I think the IHSA could ban photography of the
games if such a rule had some reason behind it and was applied
equally to everyone. Seems to me it would be just like banning
photography in courtrooms. However, no one wants photography banned
from the games - as you say everyone loves it.

No, it would be unConstitutional. It's a completely public event,
totally funded by the tax payer. Clearly they would if the could.

I don't think so. Most court proceedings are completly public events totally funded by the tax payer and photography is banned in many courtrooms.

Moreover, the idea that this is a free market event doesn't exactly
move me. Last time I checked the word "Public" still has a certain
meaning. Schools are not profit making institutions. Schools are not
a business. If they were, you would have private schools - period. It
may be that that's what some people do indeed want. But that's
another question entirely.

It's not a question of whether or not the schools are a business (most private schools are not profit making institutions). "Public" entities must interact with private contractors to get things done. The question here is whether the public institution can contract with Visual Image Photography to get good photos of events in a manner that prohibts newspapers from selling similiar photographs of these events. The question is why shouldn't the IHSA be able to make this contract? What's the harm?

If this is really about the IHSA trying to control the press
coverage, then I do think they should be stopped. But it doesn't
sound like it to me. It sounds to me more like the IPA is picking
this fight to try to establish that newspapers have a constitutional
right to maintain additional revenue streams from their photographs.

I think the IHSA is simply trying to pick up some funding. Not much,
which is why I say "nickel and dime." But I'm sure that they are
raising a little bit here and a little bit there, from other little
tricks. After all funding for schools is going down both on a Federal
and State level, and athletic programs are often the first victim.

I agree. Athough there is also an admittedly weak argument that they are not simply trying to pick up funding but are also ensuring photography of the event (which everyone loves) by entering into the exclusive contract with the private VIP firm.

I don't disapprove of them seeking to raise money - Simply not this
way of doing it.

I am sure the Illinois newpapers feel the same, but does that dissapproval rise to a constitutional level?

--
Regards,
Carl

 

[Bill Randall]

The question here is whether the public institution can contract with
Visual Image Photography to get good photos of events in a manner
that prohibts newspapers from selling similiar photographs of these
events. The question is why shouldn't the IHSA be able to make this
contract? What's the harm?

The harm as I see it is mostly the potential for abuse. Schools are a government institution. Paid for with tax dollars. This means that taxpayers have a right to full disclosure of any events involving the school. In the context of this conversation, this means the media has a right to photograph the event as they see it and to display these photographs to the public.

Consider a situation where media is limited and only the private company gets the good pictures. Let us say that something "bad" happens at the event. A situation which might reflect poorly on either the school or the administrators. This event is captured in photographs by the private company and the media. The private company gets very good pictues, while the media gets something less than very good.

In this situation the administrators can suppress distribution of the photographs by the private company - the good pictures. All we are left with is the less than good pictures that the media has.

If you allow this situation with a government school, how long do you think it will be before other government agencies start such contractual arrangements?

--

FINE PRINT: I reserve the right to be wrong. Should you prove me wrong, I reserve the right to change my mind.

 

[CBenson]

The question here is whether the public institution can contract with
Visual Image Photography to get good photos of events in a manner
that prohibts newspapers from selling similiar photographs of these
events. The question is why shouldn't the IHSA be able to make this
contract? What's the harm?

The harm as I see it is mostly the potential for abuse. Schools are a
government institution. Paid for with tax dollars. This means that
taxpayers have a right to full disclosure of any events involving the
school. In the context of this conversation, this means the media has
a right to photograph the event as they see it and to display these
photographs to the public.

Government should be transparent. Citizens (not just taxpayers) should have the right to know what the govenment is doing. But full disclosure does not mean you have to let citizens have access to individual student records. It does not mean you have to let newspaper photographers into the classrooms during regular classes. There are always appropriate limits. The question is where is the line crossed.

Consider a situation where media is limited and only the private
company gets the good pictures. Let us say that something "bad"
happens at the event. A situation which might reflect poorly on
either the school or the administrators. This event is captured in
photographs by the private company and the media. The private company
gets very good pictues, while the media gets something less than very
good.

In this situation the administrators can suppress distribution of the
photographs by the private company - the good pictures. All we are
left with is the less than good pictures that the media has.

If you allow this situation with a government school, how long do you
think it will be before other government agencies start such
contractual arrangements?

Sure in your hypothetical situation the line has been crossed. But that is not what the IHSA is doing as I understand it. They are not banning press photographers from the field, that would cross the line. They are banning press photographers that don't agree to limit use of their photographs to news. Is that crossing the line?

--
Regards,
Carl

 

[Charles Self]

Can't they shoot pix for their publictions. It seems htey just want
to stop SELLING of photos.
--

Usually, that's fine for staff photographers. If you're a freelancer,
and especially at high school games, you HAVE to have other markets
in mind to make it pay.

Okay, but does the IHSA have (or should they have) an obligation to
allow photographers make it pay.

Of course not. But if they want coverage, they'd better find a way to make it pay for the people doing the coverage...it might be something as simple as finding a way to not allow sales to the students and parents, but allowing sales for use in books and periodical.

That should please the guy shooting the team for money, and those trying to cover the team while making a buck.

I can just about promise if the association, any association, makes coverage particularly hard or impossible, or makes it difficult or impossible for those covering it to make a living from it, then those people will be elsewhere when the events go on.

--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com

 

[Charles Self]

The question here is whether the public institution can contract with
Visual Image Photography to get good photos of events in a manner
that prohibts newspapers from selling similiar photographs of these
events. The question is why shouldn't the IHSA be able to make this
contract? What's the harm?

The harm as I see it is mostly the potential for abuse. Schools are a
government institution. Paid for with tax dollars. This means that
taxpayers have a right to full disclosure of any events involving the
school. In the context of this conversation, this means the media has
a right to photograph the event as they see it and to display these
photographs to the public.

Government should be transparent. Citizens (not just taxpayers)
should have the right to know what the govenment is doing. But full
disclosure does not mean you have to let citizens have access to
individual student records. It does not mean you have to let
newspaper photographers into the classrooms during regular classes.
There are always appropriate limits. The question is where is the
line crossed.

I think maybe you're taking this argument to places it doesn't need to go. No one has mentioned shooting in classrooms, or looking at student records, nor anything close to that. That's your straw man.

Consider a situation where media is limited and only the private
company gets the good pictures. Let us say that something "bad"
happens at the event. A situation which might reflect poorly on
either the school or the administrators. This event is captured in
photographs by the private company and the media. The private company
gets very good pictues, while the media gets something less than very
good.

In this situation the administrators can suppress distribution of the
photographs by the private company - the good pictures. All we are
left with is the less than good pictures that the media has.

If you allow this situation with a government school, how long do you
think it will be before other government agencies start such
contractual arrangements?

Sure in your hypothetical situation the line has been crossed. But
that is not what the IHSA is doing as I understand it. They are not
banning press photographers from the field, that would cross the
line. They are banning press photographers that don't agree to limit
use of their photographs to news. Is that crossing the line?

They are banning press photographers who refuse to limit their photos to one-time uses. You want to put together a calendar for the Lions Club or Ruritan or some such organization of last year's best events of a particular type at a particular school. You legally cannot in the discussed situation. The contract guy would get the nod, regardless of the quality of his shots because his aftermarket work is legal.

Personally, I don't much care what a school district does, or some association within a school district, except locally. That's the only place I, or any of us, have any real control.

And that's really the place to make any objections known, should one have objections.

--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com

 

[Paul H46473]

No comment, just interesting reading.

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=126968&src=1
--
-RW

There is a difference between a public event and a privately-organized event which is open to the public. In the former case, no photographic restrictions should be permitted, but in the latter, I don't a have problem with the hosting authority having control over what is, in essence, its own intellectual property.

Why should independent photographers expect to be able to capitalize on the work and financial investment of others? Evidently the photographers could take all the photos they wanted from the viewing stands without restriction, but were not permitted privileged positions on the field unless they signed a release agreeing to not sell their photographs for profit. So what? So photographers expect models to sign releases, but exempt themselves from such legal restrictions? That's called hypocrisy in my book.

What's next, a headline such as, "Peoples' Access to Property Threatened by Anti-Theft Legislation"? Frankly, I'm not willing to man the barricades over such drivel.

I'm far more concerned with cops accosting people on the street, telling them they can't take photos of taxpayer-supported public buildings, than I am with the financial shenanigans of disgruntled "professional" shooters.

 

[Chato]

I have to ask, "What competing interests?" I don't think it's a
question of "illegal." It WOULD be illegal to ban photography from
the stands, which is why they DON'T ban photography from the stands -
They certainly sound like they would it they could.

I think you're wrong. I think the IHSA could ban photography of the
games if such a rule had some reason behind it and was applied
equally to everyone. Seems to me it would be just like banning
photography in courtrooms. However, no one wants photography banned
from the games - as you say everyone loves it.

No, it would be unConstitutional. It's a completely public event,
totally funded by the tax payer. Clearly they would if the could.

I don't think so. Most court proceedings are completly public events
totally funded by the tax payer and photography is banned in many
courtrooms.

Court rooms are not high school sporting events. Photography is banned "to further the public interest," meaning that they would distract attention from the VERY serious things that go on there. How true this is, is in the process of being worked out.

But I for one can think of NO public interest being served by banning some photographers and not others.

They can't bar ANY photographers from the stand, because that is the public venue for viewing an "open" event. They do so from the field because they can claim that no member of the public is allowed on the field.

It's not a question of whether or not the schools are a business
(most private schools are not profit making institutions). "Public"
entities must interact with private contractors to get things done.
The question here is whether the public institution can contract with
Visual Image Photography to get good photos of events in a manner
that prohibts newspapers from selling similiar photographs of these
events. The question is why shouldn't the IHSA be able to make this
contract? What's the harm?

The harm (small as it may be) is that parents and kids are reduced to seeing second rate images in the local press.

If this is really about the IHSA trying to control the press
coverage, then I do think they should be stopped. But it doesn't
sound like it to me. It sounds to me more like the IPA is picking
this fight to try to establish that newspapers have a constitutional
right to maintain additional revenue streams from their photographs.

I think the IHSA is simply trying to pick up some funding. Not much,
which is why I say "nickel and dime." But I'm sure that they are
raising a little bit here and a little bit there, from other little
tricks. After all funding for schools is going down both on a Federal
and State level, and athletic programs are often the first victim.

I agree. Athough there is also an admittedly weak argument that they
are not simply trying to pick up funding but are also ensuring
photography of the event (which everyone loves) by entering into the
exclusive contract with the private VIP firm.

I don't disapprove of them seeking to raise money - Simply not this
way of doing it.

I am sure the Illinois newpapers feel the same, but does that
dissapproval rise to a constitutional level?

Well, I believe it does. It does because just as in your courtroom or class room examples, the public interest is being served by not allowing photographers. I am hard pressed to come up with such an answer for photographers being prevented from covering sporting events.

Regards,
Carl

Dave

 

[Chato]

No comment, just interesting reading.

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=126968&src=1
--
-RW

There is a difference between a public event and a
privately-organized event which is open to the public. In the former
case, no photographic restrictions should be permitted, but in the
latter, I don't a have problem with the hosting authority having
control over what is, in essence, its own intellectual property.

Why should independent photographers expect to be able to capitalize
on the work and financial investment of others? Evidently the
photographers could take all the photos they wanted from the viewing
stands without restriction, but were not permitted privileged
positions on the field unless they signed a release agreeing to not
sell their photographs for profit. So what? So photographers expect
models to sign releases, but exempt themselves from such legal
restrictions? That's called hypocrisy in my book.

What's next, a headline such as, "Peoples' Access to Property
Threatened by Anti-Theft Legislation"? Frankly, I'm not willing to
man the barricades over such drivel.

I'm far more concerned with cops accosting people on the street,
telling them they can't take photos of taxpayer-supported public
buildings, than I am with the financial shenanigans of disgruntled
"professional" shooters.

As you point out this is a trivial issue. But trivial issues can set precedents. Precedents have a nasty habit of coming back to bite you.

Banning the press from a taxpayer funded public and open venue? Hmm. I can think of some nasty uses for such a precedent.

Dave

 

[Bill Randall]

The question here is whether the public institution can contract with
Visual Image Photography to get good photos of events in a manner
that prohibts newspapers from selling similiar photographs of these
events. The question is why shouldn't the IHSA be able to make this
contract? What's the harm?

The harm as I see it is mostly the potential for abuse. Schools are a
government institution. Paid for with tax dollars. This means that
taxpayers have a right to full disclosure of any events involving the
school. In the context of this conversation, this means the media has
a right to photograph the event as they see it and to display these
photographs to the public.

Government should be transparent. Citizens (not just taxpayers)
should have the right to know what the govenment is doing. But full
disclosure does not mean you have to let citizens have access to
individual student records. It does not mean you have to let
newspaper photographers into the classrooms during regular classes.
There are always appropriate limits. The question is where is the
line crossed.

I agree.

Consider a situation where media is limited and only the private
company gets the good pictures. Let us say that something "bad"
happens at the event. A situation which might reflect poorly on
either the school or the administrators. This event is captured in
photographs by the private company and the media. The private company
gets very good pictues, while the media gets something less than very
good.

In this situation the administrators can suppress distribution of the
photographs by the private company - the good pictures. All we are
left with is the less than good pictures that the media has.

If you allow this situation with a government school, how long do you
think it will be before other government agencies start such
contractual arrangements?

Sure in your hypothetical situation the line has been crossed. But
that is not what the IHSA is doing as I understand it. They are not
banning press photographers from the field, that would cross the
line. They are banning press photographers that don't agree to limit
use of their photographs to news. Is that crossing the line?

Regards,
Carl

I would define "news" as anything that happened at the event. Therefore, restrictions are not required. Others may have a different definition. I think that is the problem.

--

FINE PRINT: I reserve the right to be wrong. Should you prove me wrong, I reserve the right to change my mind.