So this is a misguided decision, rather than an illegal or unconstitutional decision. I agree.
I'm not sure if that would be worse for the IHSA of the IPA. I'm not from Indiana, but my understanding is the IHSA controls the high school basketball tournament which seems to be a big deal there. The papers might be hurt more than the tournament if the papers stopped covering the basketball tournament.
The definition of news doesn't limit the content of the photo, but rather the use of the photo. My understanding is that photographers that sign the IHSA agreement are not restricted as to what photos they can take. They cannot however sell individual copies of the photographs through the local paper's website.
Don't alter the argument: press coverage and press photography is not the issue at hand.
But thats not a decision that the IHSA is making. The IHSA is saying that you can have first rate pictures in the local press if the parents and kids can buy them. If the parents and kids want first rate pictures, they must come from the VIP contract photographer. Sure this a burden on the "public." It is a burden I wouldn't want to impose if I was making the decisions in the IHSA. But however bad a decision it may be, I don't see why it is illegal or unconstitutional.
Well if the IPA convinces the court that they are being prevented from covering the events I would think they have a chance at winning the suit. I'm sure they want a ruling that any prior restraint on what they do with their photographs is abrigding free press. But is requiring newpaper photographers to agree to only publish their photograhs in newpapers really preventing them from covering the events?
I think we can agree to disagree and see what the Courts say. Of course, instead of that, I can always take the more respectable DP review forum attitude and ask you why you hate America?
And photographers for the NFL merely have to agree to wear Canon Logos...
Irrelevant to the discussion both public funding of events and rights in a free society...
No need to get personal: doing so just muddies the water. And you have no point, other than expressing some vague fear regarding arbitrariness of rules.
The rules were not arbitrary, not simply grabbed out of a hat full of randomly-written rules. I understand you don't LIKE the rule in question, but to others it seems perfectly understandable and acceptable. The logical inference is that the organizing group likely wanted to use any profits from the sale of photos to fund similar future events. From this standpoint, such a rule is both understandable and in the public interest.
The public benefited by being able to view the performance and they were not compelled to attend; the public was also free to take their own photographs from the viewing stands. How allowing for-profit activity by a self-interested subset of the public obeys your "first rule" eludes me.
And, again, I point out that neither press nor photographer was prohibited from covering the event in question and the event was open to the general public who were actually encouraged to attend. Your reference to the NYC regulation is thus a complete non sequitur. What you are arguing, though, is that it's perfectly acceptable for public money and facilities to be used to further private interests, in this case, the financial interests of the photographers; furthermore, there was no secrecy, no coercion, no attempt to muzzle a free press. However, to allow members of a certain group exclusive access for private, for-profit activity is tantamount to the creation and public funding of a privileged class, which is indeed contrary to the public interest.
Thanks for cutting my first point. It made no sense - I meant to say if the parents and kids can NOT buy them.
If you instist, I will agree to disagree. But just for now, if this issue is raised again I reserve the right to agree with you in the future.I think we can agree to disagree and see what the Courts say. Of
course, instead of that, I can always take the more respectable DP
review forum attitude and ask you why you hate America?
Nice talking to you too.
Hmm? I do believe you are being the one "getting personal." You seem to believe that making and repeating the statement, "What you are saying has no merit," is in and of itself an argument. Unfortunate style of discussion at best...
Is it? New York City never claimed to desire the banning of photography. But that would have been the practical effect of their new "rules."
One can use the same argument for any newsworthy occurance covered by the press in a public venue.
They sold the right to an exclusive group for profit making. This group in turn is acting in their Own interests to make back the costs that they pay. In other words a fund raising deal, where the public no longer has any access to the optimum images normally seen in print.
Hmm? Has no merit? I take it that the public was consulted? That this is a decision welcomed with open arms? That it's not some burocrat imposing his will on everyone else, that the photography from the stands will match the photography from the field?
Ahh, some interesting follow up stories...Thanks for cutting my first point. It made no sense - I meant to say
if the parents and kids can NOT buy them.
If you instist, I will agree to disagree. But just for now, if thisI think we can agree to disagree and see what the Courts say. Of
course, instead of that, I can always take the more respectable DP
review forum attitude and ask you why you hate America?
issue is raised again I reserve the right to agree with you in the
future.
Nice talking to you too.
--
Regards,
Carl
The attempt by New York City to restrict my rights to sell the Brooklyn Bridge have been overturned by the Courts. Cost me plenty too...
I have done that, David, and it does appear to be generating some interest. Trivial is, of course, a relative term and I suspect to many who are not photographers the matter is indeed trivial. That does not mean the photographers are wrong.
Sorry, you can't run away from this. I agree with you. Now you're stuck in turn with agreeing with me...
This was part of the argument because some other poster brought up the fact that the event was held in a stadium and not a school and therefore it was a "private" event that could be controlled. I felt that might apply if the coaches were not public employees and if the stadium was both private and not supported by tax dollars, but if it was, I feel that the public (and the press) should have as much access as practical.
You make some good points, but I think there's one difference - a research lab is not a public facility - a sports stadium is.
Absolutely not. That was certainly not the impression I intended to give.
No. As I implied, since a public school is supported by tax dollars, there should not be a limitation and especially not for news events.
--
The dispute seems to have been resolved generally in the newspaper's favor. That is the newspapers can sell their photographs and the "official photographer" will not get preferential access to the games.
Somebody from the Campus POLICE DEPARTMENT did it?
Facts, reality, the topic of this thread have nothing to do with Brent. Brent cannot be proved wrong, after all, he's always right!
