Local senators side with IHSA
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:39am Wally Haas
It’s not bad enough that state Sens. Brad Burzynski and Dave Syverson voted against a proposal that would prevent the Illinois High School Association from regulating how news organizations use photos and video of high school sporting events, they voiced their opposition on the senate floor.
Burzynski and Syverson were two of only five no votes in this long-running IHSA photo policy dispute.
Contrast their position with that of their fellow local Republicans in the House. Dave Winters and Ron Wait are co-sponsors on an identical piece of legislation.
Winters sees it as a free-market issue. Many of my media friends see it as a freedom of the press issue. The press doesn’t need any more restrictions.
I look at it from a parent/fan perspective. If the local newspaper photographer takes a picture of your son or daughter playing in a tournament game and that photo only appears online, you won’t be able to buy a copy of that picture if the IHSA prevails.
Let’s say your kid only gets to play garbage time in a state tournament game. The official IHSA photog probably won’t take a picture of your kid. Your local newspaper photographer is more likely to.
The photo wouldn’t make it into the paper, but would be included in an online photo gallery. If you liked the picture, you could buy it. The IHSA doesn’t think we have the right to sell it to you.
The IHSA is not just stopping professional newspaper photographers, but has also stopped parents from taking pictures.
Last fall in Peoria, parents who were trying to take photos of the all-state cross country runners and the winning teams as they stood together at the podium with their trophies were shooed away.
So the IHSA photo policy hurts you as much as it hurts us.
Entry Filed under: Uncategorized
8 Comments Add your own
1. Curtis Newport | April 2nd, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Mr. Haas,
The amount of whining you have done over this issue that affects so few people makes me wonder how much profit your newspaper makes from print sales.
There are valid reasons to not like the IHSA policy. It doesn’t thrill me either, but we’re not talking about editorial use here. We’re talking about print sales, and any suggestion that you should enjoy print sales priviledges not offered to other professional photographers, just because you are “the press”, is groundless.
I will gladly support freedom of the press whenever it is challenged. But in this case, wrapping yourself in the First Amendment just makes you look silly.
If your motive here is not profit, then just post your full-resolution images online, and let people download them for free and make their own prints. Then everyone will be happy.
2. Wally Haas | April 2nd, 2008 at 3:13 pm
We don’t make much money on these photos, so profit is not our motive.
We “whine” about a lot of things that don’t affect our bottom line: Ineffective lawmakers are on the top of that list..
The IHSA is invading our turf, telling us how we can use the products we produce. Although I hate most “slippery slope” arguments, what else will the IHSA want from us? Now, the policy is directed toward state tournaments. Will it continue to filter down to local games on Friday nights?
The IHSA has been getting free marketing through newspapers for years. Perhaps we should start charging for that.
3. Curtis Newport | April 2nd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Will it continue to filter down to local games on Friday nights? I don’t know, but the issues involved would be the same.
I would love to stand next to your photographers on the sidelines of football games, take pictures and sell prints. But I don’t get that kind of access because I’m not shooting for a press organization. Freedom of the press does not grant you rights or access beyond what other citizens are entitled to. You are there because you have permission. The next time you’re standing on that “turf”, you might stop and think about who owns it and who grants you the privilege of being there.
If you’re content to buy a ticket and shoot from the stands, beyond the track on the other side of the fence, out of flash range with everyone else, then I will gladly stand beside you in opposition of any policy that prohibits what we can do with our cameras or our pictures.
4. Justin Time | April 2nd, 2008 at 6:34 pm
You are wrong, Curtis. The press is a representative of the public as a whole, and therefore does have special access. When there is an accident scene, police allow reporter and photographers access, but the public stays behind the yellow tape. Whe it is a legislative meeting, reporters are allowed access to lawmakers, while the general public is not. They are seen as representatives of the public…therefore they are among the few people who can have special access because allowing too many in would cause pandemonium. Society is built on checks and balances and the media is seen as a check for a lot of things. They represent you.
You might argue for MORE access for more people, but please don’t argue that the press should have the same limited access as the public as a whole. Tough to be a watchdog if that is the case.
5. Curtis Newport | April 2nd, 2008 at 9:57 pm
To clarify -
The press is often given special access to sporting events through permission, not by right. The access is granted under the assumption that they are there for journalistic purposes. Nothing wrong with that.
The RRStar wants use that special access for commercial purposes (print sales) not just journalism. Editorial use has never been at issue.
I’m fine with having press photographers on the sidelines. I’m fine with them selling pictures if they have permission to do so. But this is not a first amendment issue, regardless of how often they try to wave the bill of rights in our faces.
6. hokumboy | April 3rd, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Let me get this straight. A press photographer can take my picture at a public event and the newspaper he works for can sell that picture (of me) without my permission?
7. Jim O\'Neill | April 3rd, 2008 at 1:29 pm
I have news for you…ANYBODY can take your picture at a public event and sell it. Press photographers just have better access to take the photo.
8. hokumboy | April 3rd, 2008 at 2:13 pm
I know anyone can take my picture (public forum/public venue) but aren’t the rights to sell my image mine? They are to the families of dead movie stars and athletes.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed