Media Boycott of test Cricket

[Yv]

Not sure how interesting this is to people here, but thought I would put a post up and see what the response is.

Yesterday, media outlets refused to publish photographs of the 1st Day of the Test between India and England in a boycott protest after Indias criketing board [BCCI] refused to grant accreditation to the grounds to agencies such as Getty and Action Images. Their argument is that those images could use the photos for commercial purposes at a later date, even though the same agencies say this is ridiculous as all the accreditation rules and agreements state this cannot happen. For media outlets that would normally use images from these agencies, they were allowed to use the BCCI's own images but some chose to support the boycott in protest. [Not looked round all the dailies yet, so not sure how many here, never mind round the world, but seems, from twitter comments, its been supported quite well]

The Telegraphs explanation is HERE but you can probably find similar reports in most newspapers.

...and if you have a sense of humour, their picture gallery > LINKY


So, I guess the question is [and the thing I am curious about as a none sports photographer who doesn't know or understand the ins and outs of these things] is how this may effect future coverage if this becomes more widespread. We already know about the extremely tight controls football has in place here in the UK so wondering what the thoughts of the sports photographers around here are on this. Is it a good thing, bad thing, or of no interest at all? :shrug:

 

[andyred]

.....and if you have a sense of humour, their picture gallery > LINKY

So, I guess the question is [and the thing I am curious about as a none sports photographer who doesn't know or understand the ins and outs of these things] is how this may effect future coverage :

Didn't know about this, like yourself very curious and interested in the pros and cons of this and going to go and read more about it.

But hats off to the telegraph - loving there coverage in the picture gallery :-D

 

[Yv]

I had a quick flick round some of the other dailies [by no means an extensive check], and most seem to be showing just reports with either old photos or screen grabs from sky [permitted apparently] Not too many image galleries, but no real mention of why, though I dont know how many of them would have had more than the odd picture anyway as I dont normally look at them all. ESPNcricinfo not carrying any, as one of the bigger sites for world cricket news.

 

[aethelstan927]

Seems very odd :-S

The bit about the BCCI charging sky 500K to broadcast from the site did seem a tad money grabbing, but then again I'm not in broadcasting and that could be very reasonable ?? (I'm guessing not though)

I'm leaning to side with the News Media Coalition when they say there is something else a at the heart of this issue. . . interesting to see if they make some kind of crazy demands

 

[swanseamale47]

It's been done at royal visits as well,I can't remember where now but the local plod stopped the press from shooting from the press area, and only let them shoot from the publics area. So when the queen arrived they all downed cameras and turned their backs.
Within minutes the queens press officer (or somebody similar) had a word with the chief of ploice and all was sorted.

 

[kelack]

Loving the Telegraph's pictures

 

[snapzz]

I find it odd that Reuters, AFP and PA have what appears to be a seperate agreement to agencies such as Getty's and AI. Obviously lurking in the background will be money and the BCCI obviously believe they will miss out on reproduction rights/sales.

 

[Yv]

I find it odd that Reuters, AFP and PA have what appears to be a seperate agreement to agencies such as Getty's and AI. Obviously lurking in the background will be money and the BCCI obviously believe they will miss out on reproduction rights/sales.

Yes, the 'they are news syndication, so that's ok' line struck me as odd, as I would have assumed that the agreements regarding the actual photos and their usage would be pretty much the same, editorial only. :shrug: Absolutely no doubt money is behind it all somewhere, but in exactly what context remains to be seen.

 

[bigrob]

The bit about the BCCI charging sky £500K to broadcast from the site did seem a tad money grabbing.

That'll be to pay the punkawalla's wages then will it

BCCI shooting themselves in the foot by the sounds of it.

 

[Yv]

That'll be to pay the punkawalla's wages then will it

BCCI shooting themselves in the foot by the sounds of it.

Well that is sort of what I am asking for, are they? The BCCI are the most powerful board in international cricket, [some would say more power than is good for the sport, and more powerful than the ICC but thats another debate] and from sitting in the armchair watching, it seems like they are only doing what football has already done here. They can afford to....

...however, that doesn't take into account world wide the grass roots and promoting a sport in countries where it is less well played, or where money isn't always available, etc...and thats why I want to know what photographers generally and pro togs in particular feel about this stance and what will happen going forward.


Simply from a fans point of view, I can see the future if other boards follow suit.... currently I can walk into Lords, with my dslr kit and take photos of any match [I can't use them to sell, thats absolutely right and fair] .... should this carry through, all that will stop and that annoys me [course it does ] but this isn't about fans rights, so much as what will be promoted to fans in the future and how - if that makes sense?

 

[POAH]

as far as I understand it - they have stopped photographers that work for agencies from getting accreditation but if you are working for a newspaper or other editorial outlet you are fine.

Don't see what all the hubbub is about though. The bonafid press still have access to photograph the cricket.

 

[seriousrikk]

as far as I understand it - they have stopped photographers that work for agencies from getting accreditation but if you are working for a newspaper or other editorial outlet you are fine.

Don't see what all the hubbub is about though. The bonafid press still have access to photograph the cricket.

But don't most bonafide press outlets use agencies for a lot of their images anyway as they no longer have a huge photo staff?

 

[POAH]

But don't most bonafide press outlets use agencies for a lot of their images anyway as they no longer have a huge photo staff?

don't need a staff - thats what freelancers are for.

cheaper to hire a local in mumbai than send a staffer out

 

[tiler65]

Isn't this the same thing Southampton tried with their football togs a couple of years ago? I think there is a thread on it somewhere.

It looks like the Indian cricket authorities want a bigger slice of the cake but the institution of the way the press deal with news stories will probably prove too big a task to overcome by the cricket authorities.

 

[POAH]

certainly not from editoral use they won't as they are letting those photographers in. as for selling images for comerical uses its entirely up to them how they operate.

 

[inkiboo]

as far as I understand it - they have stopped photographers that work for agencies from getting accreditation but if you are working for a newspaper or other editorial outlet you are fine.

Don't see what all the hubbub is about though. The bonafid press still have access to photograph the cricket.

The hubbub is restricting the freedom of the press and your implication that agency photographers are not "bonafid" press is both wrong and misguided.

 

[POAH]

The hubbub is restricting the freedom of the press and your implication that agency photographers are not "bonafid" press is both wrong and misguided.

its not restricting the freedom of the press - Press photographers were allowed in. The agency photographers were not. Agencys are not the press, they make money from selling images not reporting news. The press don't have the freedom for private functions.

 

[st599]

Were they allowed in?

Sky were planning on commentating from Isleworth on a video feed.

 

[inkiboo]

its not restricting the freedom of the press - Press photographers were allowed in. The agency photographers were not. Agencys are not the press, they make money from selling images not reporting news. The press don't have the freedom for private functions.

I'll let our news department know they don't report the news. I'll also let all of our editorial staff, who cover events in the same way their AP, AFP and Reuters colleagues do, that they are not journalists (despite getting journalist visas, press cards).

Your views are so utterly misguided and wrong, they are laughable.

 

[inkiboo]

Agencys are not the press, they make money from selling images not reporting news. The press don't have the freedom for private functions.

Just to add, do you think Reuters, AP and AFP just give their photos away for free?

 

[Yv]

don't need a staff - thats what freelancers are for.

cheaper to hire a local in mumbai than send a staffer out

...or to use images from agencies like Getty, AI, etc and with whom they will already have an ongoing relationship....

st599 - Sky are indeed operating from a west london studio using the live picture feed and in association with the host broadcaster.


Inkiboo, would love to know more about how this is being taken 'on the inside' as it were and what it is felt the future repercussions might be, if you want to go into any detail of course.

 

[acetone]

Seems very odd :-S

The bit about the BCCI charging sky 500K to broadcast from the site did seem a tad money grabbing, but then again I'm not in broadcasting and that could be very reasonable ?? (I'm guessing not though)

Like yourself I'm not in broadcasting, but would have thought 500K was rather cheap to Sky, lets remember we are talking about a company that pays over a billion for English football, then again they resell that and maybe the BCCI does not allow sky to do that, but still it's only 100K a day, not much in the TV world I would think.

 

[Yv]

Like yourself I'm not in broadcasting, but would have thought 500K was rather cheap to Sky, lets remember we are talking about a company that pays over a billion for English football, then again they resell that and maybe the BCCI does not allow sky to do that, but still it's only 100K a day, not much in the TV world I would think.

Much less p/d actually, given thats for 4 tests at 5 days apiece - however, it is an additional charge on top of what sums they are already paying for the TV rights. I would like to think it is because they are taking a stand and refusing to be held to ransom by the BCCI.... more interesting would be to know what deal was the BBC struck with them to get TMS in there.

 

[admirable]

They need to chill and feed them all Jaffa Cakes

 

[rmt1982]

Its interesting to see the Daily Mail have used Matt Priors pictures from Twitter online and in print.. Wonder if they pay him.

 

[inkiboo]

Inkiboo, would love to know more about how this is being taken 'on the inside' as it were and what it is felt the future repercussions might be, if you want to go into any detail of course.

Despite the ill-formed views of some here, Getty Images are founding members of the News Media Coalition (because we are a news gathering organisation) and the NMCs views have been widely reported:

http://cricketnext.in.com/live/news/news-media-coalition-wants-bcci-to-end-dispute/69346-13.html

The NMC also have the backing of the IOC on this.

 

[POAH]

Just to add, do you think Reuters, AP and AFP just give their photos away for free?

That was my point

 

[POAH]

I'll let our news department know they don't report the news. I'll also let all of our editorial staff, who cover events in the same way their AP, AFP and Reuters colleagues do, that they are not journalists (despite getting journalist visas, press cards).

Your views are so utterly misguided and wrong, they are laughable.

Agency's are not the the press they take pictures and sell them to who ever wants them. The press are the papers and websites that actually publish the images not sell them on as their primary source of income. A photographer forms newspaper is not the same as a photographer from AP etc. the test match is on private ground and the organisers can set what ever restrictions they want with the organisers agreeing with with my thoughts on the subject

 

[Yv]

Agency's are not the the press they take pictures and sell them to who ever wants them. The press are the papers and websites that actually publish the images not sell them on as their primary source of income. A photographer forms newspaper is not the same as a photographer from AP etc. the test match is on private ground and the organisers can set what ever restrictions they want with the organisers agreeing with with my thoughts on the subject

Trouble is, ONLY the organisers agree with you, the rest of the media world has rightly taken a stance against it, given the former are only allowed to sell said images to the latter for editorial purposes only, which is the point you seem to be deliberately ignoring. The agencies cannot then sell them on for advertising or similar other commercial gain as part of the t&c's that are applied for those agencies to get accreditation and access [this applies equally to a match here in England as it does in India]. Said organisers have also somewhat shot themselves in the foot, given that now, very few of the latter are using their own, or the organisers images in protest and the revenue they were some how hoping to protect/increase, isn't actually there. Nor are all those worldwide lovely pictures with sponsors logos featuring on them.....

 

[rhody]

Trouble is, ONLY the organisers agree with you, the rest of the media world has rightly taken a stance against it, given the former are only allowed to sell said images to the latter for editorial purposes only,

Doesn't POAH have a point though?

If the agencies want access to a private function on private land in order to sell on the images they take on the day to the media, they are clearly making money out of having such access.

Isn't this just the BCCI ensuring that anyone making money from images taken at their event on their land has to pay for the privilege?

I can't see that the "Freedom of the Press" is at risk at all - the press already have full access to the event.

It's the Press that are shooting themselves in both feet for choosing not to use the images they already have and are entitled to use and share with fans.

Isn't this just a dispute between Getty, AI and BCCI?

The Freedom of the Press argument and the boycott of publishing images are simply red herrings to me.

It's the Press that are acting irresponsibly on this issue and doing the fans a great disservice by withholding images they could easily publish and share.

As usual in sport - it's all about the money and it's the fans that suffer

 

[inkiboo]

If you think using images supplied by the event organiser ensures press freedom then I'm a giraffe.

 

[rhody]

The Press bang on about "Freedom" when it suits them.

Here, the Press are only trying to bully the BCCI into doing what they want.

The Freedom of the Press is not an issue here.

I can't understand what the fuss is all about.

"The Press" and agencies that have the licences and agreements in place are applying a boycott and not printing the images they have already paid for and are trying to blame the BCCI?

It is not OK for the Press to bully or apply boycotts to anyone - haven't they learnt anything from Leveson?

The Press are acting like spoilt children - stamping their feet when they can't get their own way.

The boycott is a disgrace and is clearly a "bully boy" tactic employed by those who should know better and who should act impartially to report the news ethically and truthfully - not to try to intimidate and blackmail others.

The Press can't seem to regulate themselves at all at any level. Cases like this just give ammunition to Leveson supporters

 

[inkiboo]

And as many people have pointed out, look at the supporters of the Press here. Leveson has nothing to do with this issue at all.

I assume everyone would be happy with organiser supplied text journalists too?

 

[POAH]

If you think using images supplied by the event organiser ensures press freedom then I'm a giraffe.

The press have no freedom here - what part of private event don't you understand

Plus press were allowed in as far as I can see so what part of their "freedom" has been removed

 

[POAH]

They are the only ones that count however.

Don't think I've actually agreed with them though. All I've done is said is they are not stopping press from photographing the event only people that want to make a profit from it which people seem to be ignoring.

Trouble is, ONLY the organisers agree with you, the rest of the media world has rightly taken a stance against it, given the former are only allowed to sell said images to the latter for editorial purposes only, which is the point you seem to be deliberately ignoring. The agencies cannot then sell them on for advertising or similar other commercial gain as part of the t&c's that are applied for those agencies to get accreditation and access [this applies equally to a match here in England as it does in India]. Said organisers have also somewhat shot themselves in the foot, given that now, very few of the latter are using their own, or the organisers images in protest and the revenue they were some how hoping to protect/increase, isn't actually there. Nor are all those worldwide lovely pictures with sponsors logos featuring on them.....

 

[inkiboo]

They are the only ones that count however.

Don't think I've actually agreed with them though. All I've done is said is they are not stopping press from photographing the event only people that want to make a profit from it which people seem to be ignoring.

They haven't stopped AP, AFP and Reuters but I assume you think those 3 companies are not for profit?

You are ignoring, through ignorance or naivety, that legitimate news organisations are being blocked from reporting.

When the whole press and other event organisers (such as the IOC) disagree with you maybe you should consider your position?

 

[Yv]

The press have no freedom here - what part of private event don't you understand

Plus press were allowed in as far as I can see so what part of their "freedom" has been removed

The point is, and the reason I asked the questions in the first place, is where it goes from here? Yes, the 'press' [as you define it] were allowed in, but they chose to support the agencies. Those that were allowed in, had much stricter restrictions applied than would be normal for any international sporting event. As I see it, the reason they chose to support the agencies is that next time, it might be them.... now you can cry 'private' event, their rules and you would be right - but at what point does it a)become a self defeating exercise [without fair and far coverage, the event no longer has the appeal, people tune out, sponsors get no value for money, etc] and b)much worse, ensure that something that should have been reported with no bias and full coverage doesn't happen and everyone is suddenly up in arm and concerned?

Let me give you a scenario .... purely and absolutely hypothetical.... but lets just say, given its a cricket match, that one of the teams indulged in some shady ball tampering - now if it was an England player, the BCCI would no doubt release as many pictures from their official photographers as possible to demonstrate what a wicked man he is. If it was an Indian player, are you SURE they would release some, if any pictures for us to be able to make our own judgement call, to allow unbiased reporting [or indeed biased, but from ALL sides of the argument]? Especially in India, where cricket is what football is here. Those that were allowed in, were restricted in what, when and where they could report, should those restrictions be further tightened, the end game is obvious.

oh yes, and that unreported event might be something totally insiginificant in the overall scheme of world chaos such as ball tampering, but equally it might be a Hillsborough [not that anyone would wish that on any event, ever, I am just using it as an example]


As for the Leveson comments, that is such a leap of illogic I am not even going to try and argue it, you win, yes its the press stamping their feet and giving Leveson supporters ammunition.... :|

 

[Yv]

They are the only ones that count however.

Don't think I've actually agreed with them though. All I've done is said is they are not stopping press from photographing the event only people that want to make a profit from it which people seem to be ignoring.

but that makes NO sense whatsoever.... the news agengies and indeed the newspapers that print the pictures/write the articles, ALL make a profit from those activities, so where exactly is the difference? :shrug:

 

[rhody]

The first part of Leveson was to "examine the culture, practices and ethics of the media".

If a section of the Press have decided to employ a boycott against a private company who appear to be acting perfectly legally - why should the boycott not be challenged and criticised?

The Press should stick to reporting facts accurately and impartially and not try to force private companies to act or change their company policy to suit the Telegraph and its cronies version of what they want to happen.

The Press continually beat the tired old drum of "Freedom of the Press" but what about the right of private companies to go about their business without being bullied and to have boycotts applied against them by the very same people who cry "Freedom" as soon as it suits them.

Private companies have rights too - or have the Press somehow missed that relevant point?

I would support the freedom of the press for something like Tiananmen Square but drawing a "Freedom" comparision to a game where 11 D-list celebrities hit a ball with a stick around a manicured field and another 11 D-list celebrities try and catch it, is frankly absurd.

The culture, practices and ethics of the Press leave a lot to be desired and this is yet another perfect example of the Press acting together and bullying a private company because a) they can b) it suits them c) they have no effective self regulation and d) they employ hypocrisy and double standards when it suits them.

Can you imagine the furore and the response if the Indian press and public called on the IOC to change the way it dealt with things?

A kangaroo court set up by the Press acting as judge and jury is highly questionable; rabble rousing by the Press in its pages is highly questionable and a baying mob calling for "action" when nothing illegal appears to be going on simply demands questions of impartiality and accountability to be answered.

To me - that ticks all the Leveson boxes in one fine current example of why the Press need strong, independent and enforceable regulation.

We have a free press but only when it suits them and when it is convenient to ask awkward and difficult questions.

When the truth is inconvenient there is a roaring silence from our so called "free" press.

 

[robahob]

If its crickeeeeet would that be a Geoffrey Boycot?