Photographers locked out of football matches

Status
Not open for further replies.
rhody

rhody

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,083
Edit My Images
No
The Football League and Premier League have introduced new rules for professional photographers and reporters reporting on their matches.

If you don't agree to the new terms and conditions - which affect match reporting and circulation of photographs - you will not be able to enjoy the media / press facilities.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/championship/8687406/Telegraph-reporters-denied-access-at-stadiums-due-to-dispute-between-media-and-Football-League.html

As private landowners simply exercising control on how images taken on their land are circulated for profit - I can't see what all the fuss is about.

If a professional photographer wants to make money from images taken on private land - the landowners have every right to impose terms and conditions.

If you don't like the new terms and conditions - don't sign the new agreement and enjoy the match from the cheap seats like most other people.

I also fail to see why those newspapers that have already signed up to the new agreements are being called "scabs" by fellow colleagues.

Private landowners can impose whatever terms and conditions they like to professionals who want to make money out of being at their events.

Can't see what the problem is really.
 
Last edited:
Football relies on various sources of income to keep it going. It therefore needs as much exposure as possible, to advertise the game and make it seem as accessible as possible. With the advent of Sky and the restrictions which they place on viewing, plus the ever increasing admission charges to watch live football, it seems that a sport designed for the masses is in fact becoming exclusive.
I think that football needs a reality check, it needs to behave differently in order to make the sport seem more attractive.
 
Didn't Southampton try this last year with their local paper. Ultimately they lost as they realised that their sponsors and supporters were going to get restless with the media ignoring them.
 
Cant see any mention regarding photographers only reporters. The photography side is covered by the FootballDataCo and as far as I'm aware donot have any issues.
 
rhody said:
I also fail to see why those newspapers that have already signed up to the new agreements are being called "scabs" by fellow colleagues.
Click to expand...

This is why I havent sent any in to nationals.. As a licence holder I am dismayed that neither side (the ones not signing have formed a group) have been in touch to advise smaller agencies as to whats going on and why?

I think to avoid future problems I will just not send to nationals and guess that it will be sorted soon...Its not a big thing for me as nationals hardly ever use accy stanley stuff anyways :)
 
Removed as it contained an off the cuff one word remark about a large comapny.. not about any photogprahers.. just a large comapny...
 
Last edited:
I don't think I'm understanding what the argument is on either side. :shrug:

Can anyone explain?
 
redhed17 said:
Can anyone explain?
Click to expand...

I doubt anyone in this thread (inc me) know what the argument is..

All we do know is that most national newspapers and some big photo agencies are refusing to sign dataco agreements to cover football.. as such they are not being allowed into grounds to cover football.

why they wont sign or what the problem is...well thats anyone guess..
 
Like many others I would be suprised if it wasnt sorted before the permiership money grabbing league starts
 
Football at this level is no longer a sport its just a machine trying to grab as much money off as many people as they can,and this is just another example of their money grabbing greed.

I should get in to my West Midlands League match tonight though
 
UNBELIEVABLEGuardian newspaper has this article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/08/times-telegraph-football-bodies-lockout


Among the Football League's Championship, League One and League Two clubs which began their season at the weekend, only Brighton & Hove Albion, West Ham and Accrington Stanley defied the order to bar journalists from matches. Clubs were ordered by the football bodies not to admit reporters from newspapers and media outlets who had not signed a temporary rights deal.
Click to expand...

Accrington Stanley played at Northampton on Saturday and had no say in media presence. The Accrington press officer has no intention of defying any orders...Even if he did.. it would be impossible if we didnt even play at home?

Another example of how people or clubs can get into trouble without doing anythign wrong :(
 
KIPAX said:
UNBELIEVABLEGuardian newspaper has this article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/08/times-telegraph-football-bodies-lockout




Accrington Stanley played at Northampton on Saturday and had no say in media presence. The Accrington press officer has no intention of defying any orders...Even if he did.. it would be impossible if we didnt even play at home?

Another example of how people or clubs can get into trouble without doing anythign wrong :(
Click to expand...

So it's all your fault then Tony
 
From the Guardian article;
(Henry)Winter threatened that if newspapers "fall out of love" with football they could choose focus more on sports such as cricket or rugby union to make the sport's governing bodies "realise to their cost what an own goal this ban has been
Click to expand...

It is a nice idea that the papers could shift the focus away from football, but football is the reason the vast majority of newspapers are sold each day. :shrug: The papers may make a stand, as they should if they want to get their own way, but the consumer would not so easily take the alternative.
 
Once again the facts are non existent.

Other than negotiations are taking place, we actually know nothing.

i.e. what were the T&Cs and what is being proposed?

I may of course be totally wrong, but could Sky be behind this. It wouldn't surprise me if they wanted NO live reporting (e.g. blogs, BBC updates etc).
 
Oh yes forgot to say.

I suspect that the OP (whilst he may technically be correct about private landlords) did intend to stir up a lively debate.
 
snapzz said:
Cant see any mention regarding photographers only reporters. The photography side is covered by the FootballDataCo and as far as I'm aware donot have any issues.
Click to expand...

It does mention in the Telegraph article that reporters and photographers were not allowed in but there is not much mention of the new T&C's that are causing the problems - although I did see one reference to a change in the way images may be syndicated.
 
awp said:
So what is the point of your post - or are you just trying to stir it?
Click to expand...

Not trying to "stir it" at all - more of a chance to discuss it openly.

In fact I was surprised that on a photography forum there was no reference to it - hence the post.

I am surprised at the "downmarket" and rude comments posted in this thread - very professional indeed.

If it's in the public arena - why can't it be discussed openly?

Surely the log jam will be broken and a way forward found by both parties?

It is a very interesting scenario.
 
rhody said:
Not trying to "stir it" at all - more of a chance to discuss it openly.

In fact I was surprised that on a photography forum there was no reference to it - hence the post.

I am surprised at the "downmarket" and rude comments posted in this thread - very professional indeed.

If it's in the public arena - why can't it be discussed openly?

Surely the log jam will be broken and a way forward found by both parties?

It is a very interesting scenario.
Click to expand...

My response was entirely justified and i was simply stating what others thought, maybe a little bluntly but i make no apology for it.

You have made several statements that are inflammatory,especially when posted in a section of the forum frequented by many people who cover Premiership and Championship football.


The Football League and Premier League have introduced new rules for professional photographers and reporters reporting on their matches.

If you don't agree to the new terms and conditions - which affect match reporting and circulation of photographs - you will not be able to enjoy the media / press facilities.
Click to expand...

We do not "enjoy" the press facilities, they are a necessary part of the job.

If you don't like the new terms and conditions - don't sign the new agreement and enjoy the match from the cheap seats like most other people.
Click to expand...

What a ridiculous statement, you are saying you think people should have to pay to get into their place of WORK, i have no idea of your job but i think you would be annoyed if people said "if you don't like it then tough luck and you can pay £30 every day to get into the workplace" (on top of fuel and parking)
 
Rovers_Andy said:
My response was entirely justified and i was simply stating what others thought, maybe a little bluntly but i make no apology for it.

You have made several statements that are inflammatory,especially when posted in a section of the forum frequented by many people who cover Premiership and Championship football.




We do not "enjoy" the press facilities, they are a necessary part of the job.



What a ridiculous statement, you are saying you think people should have to pay to get into their place of WORK, i have no idea of your job but i think you would be annoyed if people said "if you don't like it then tough luck and you can pay £30 every day to get into the workplace" (on top of fuel and parking)
Click to expand...

Ditto Andy's comments Rhody.!! Though you may have initially brought this up in good faith?, (already started within the "Whohoo Premier Footy this season" thread by the way!!)" a few of your comments have no substance in respect to the situation & are provocative to say the least!. I agree both sides will sort things out within a few days as loss of reveniew to both party's would be foolish, however in the meantime we smaller Agency photographers are in limbo as we do not know if submitting to the nationals could be counter productive due to future blacklisting!!or a bonus as the big guns are missing??. to triviatise the situation when you know nothing about the industry is foolhardy & opened you up to critisim which you duly got!. Kind regards Graham.
 
A lot of self employed people have to buy their own gear and equipment - whatever their trade might be - and some have to pay up front costs in order to get fee paying work in order to earn a living, so nothing new there then.

Why are the new T&C's so objectionable to some?

Why have some already agreed to them?

If it's being reported in the newspapers - it's up for discussion surely?

When private landowners choose to impose very strict terms and conditions on professional photographers and reporters - I am very curious to understand why - that's all.

Lots of people in all sectors of the country are finding their T&C's being changed - not always for the good and it is a worry if you are caught up in it.

But this is a very interesting development indeed - even if we are only getting part of the story.
 
I understand it's the Football league and Premier League through their agents Dataco that are imposing the new T&C's - but surely only because the events take place on private land to which the public have access and therefore they can apply terms and conditions to suit their own requirements?

If it was public land surely they wouldn't have a leg to stand on and anyone could take pictures?

It seems strange to Joe Public that some have already agreed to the new T&C's and others are refusing and are now calling their own colleagues "scabs".

It's gotta make ya curious innit?
 
Last edited:
I've found it interesting that a story has been reported so vaguely. :eek:

I also find it odd that the professional photographers here seem to know little about what has already started, and could severely impact their work in a significant way. If you know what's going on, and don't want to say then OK, but to jump on someone for asking what's going on is not very nice.

One would assume this was the place to ask the question. :shrug:
 
redhed17 said:
I've found it interesting that a story has been reported so vaguely. :eek:

I also find it odd that the professional photographers here seem to know little about what has already started, and could severely impact their work in a significant way. If you know what's going on, and don't want to say then OK, but to jump on someone for asking what's going on is not very nice.

One would assume this was the place to ask the question. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Big difference between asking questions and making statements that will only stir the **** though isn't there?
 
I have just been made aware of this post from someone involved with the Premier League.

From the first line on the original post, it is totally inaccurate and indeed libellous. Surely if photographers are submitting to newspapers then surely they should be aware of basic libel and publishing laws which also extend to the internet.

The poster is stating words as though they are fact and being as though it is not that difficult to seek the actual facts using simple journalistic skills of telephoning the powers that be to find out the true facts - is not exactly rocket science.

Equally can the original poster expand on which newspapers are calling their valued contributors as scum as this is totally inaccurate and indeed defamatory to others.

With regards to the crazy notion that individuals go to stadiums to enjoy media facilities and imply that they may get accreditation to simply attend a fixture for free - quite simply, with the right lawyer this could result in 5 yrs inside.

Not only is this a sincerely unprofessional outlook, it does not help your colleagues when everyone will simply be labelled as a wannabe photographer and a fan with a camera which will result in making it a damn sight harder for everyone to get accreditation - it is difficult enough as it is. Two Premier League football clubs are providing LESSER facilities than last year. These forums are printed out and syndicated amongst those responsible. These kind of comments do not help those trying to negotiate for the benefit of others one little bit.

This is a fact : It is no wonder most rugby and football clubs are now locking up their doors to unknowns as are the Olympic Committee making it more difficult to gain accreditation even to seasoned professionals when the likes of this posters like this write such nonsense.

Professional photographers will get less friendly to those trying to break through and recommend to press officers that certain individuals are not allowed access into stadia. Some photographers at one football club have already got one part timer banned for acting as an idiot and stopping a true professional from doing their job.

For one last time - pub speak is pub speak, but to publish using the written word on the internet you are indeed labelled as publishing under UK law and subject to the heavy handed libel law should someone wish to take action.

If the poster can turn his head upside down then the understanding may become more clearer. It is the newspapers who want to change things not DataCo. The information is quite freely available and written by qualified journalists and checked by editors with equal libel law knowledge as a top solicitor.

SPAM/3lmreeg or look at the Observer for another example
 
Last edited:
KIPAX said:
... its a messageboard.. I made a passing remark about a company i dislike (not about its photogrpahers)..take it with a pinch of salt and try not to let it upset you :)
Click to expand...

Kipax, written with the greatest of sincerity, you may believe that its 'only' a messageboard but the facts are that when you press the REPLY button you are publishing information equal to that of publishing information in a magazine or newspaper and are subject to the same libel laws which are in place to protect everyone in our society.

When posters are writing ill-informed remarks about institutions more powerful than them then they can be subject to severe repercussions. By all means discuss the matter with the facts, but do not make statements that are nothing short of libel.

Just be careful, that is all I am suggesting.
 
Last edited:
soccersnapper said:
- quite simply, with the right lawyer this could result in 5 yrs inside.
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly with the majority of your comments, and the sentiment behind them, but that statement above is just daft; libel is a civil not a criminal offence and as such does not attract a custodial (or any) sentence. Perhaps you were thinking about a few well known cases where subsequently proved perjury was involved?
 
pointless explaning when the post has been deleted :)
 
Last edited:
thank you for this - I have learnt something - after some investigation, criminal libel was abolished in 2010 which did carry a sentence as punishment.

That I did not know.

As you point out it is now a civil matter which you could argue is probably worse than being put inside! I would personally prefer the force of the CPS than a top lawyer representing a multi-million pound outfit.
 
KIPAX said:
I agree.. I ahvent taken sides in whats posted and decided not to send to nationals and to stay out of it all. The only thing I have put is that i ahve no idea whats going on.. and dismayed nobody from either side has come forward to say whats going on earlier.. nothing I have written has been stated as information let alone fact :)


But I wrote the word getty with <spit> next to it

for 8 years I have been photographing womens football.. the new WSL started recently and getty have been sending photographers to the league games.. FACT they have been giving these pictures free to the womens football clubs the womens magazine and other media.. I spoke (by email) to the FA who confirmed this (they told me it was for the first 6 mths only.. I have the email from the FA).. I spoke to clubs and womens football media outlets who also confirmed this.. Nobody wants to pay when they can get from getty for free...

Thus when I mention getty I may on occasion add a <spit> .. If anyone other than the owners of getty want to get upset about that then theres my explanation.. its 100% NOT the photogrpahers fault..its the company.

I stand by my <spit> with good reason and the day a company comes along and takes a chunk of any photographers revenue away by giving free pictures to there customers I am sure they will want to spit as well :) unfortunatly some people think I am now allowed an opinion..

With the greatest of respect to yourself and others on here i will bow out of this thread.. I get the feeling I cant say anything right... I will still not be sending pictures to national media until its all sorted.. I may not have a clue whats going on but feel its best to keep my head down :)
Click to expand...

kipax - my post was not aimed at you my friend. Just the original poster of this thread. In my eyes you have done nothing wrong at all so please do not get concerned.
 
soccersnapper said:
kipax - my post was not aimed at you my friend. Just the original poster of this thread. In my eyes you have done nothing wrong at all so please do not get concerned.
Click to expand...

as you quoted me i presumed you meant me... sorry :) some days the internet can be a right royal pain to follow :)
 
Last edited:
soccersnapper said:
thank you for this - I have learnt something - after some investigation, criminal libel was abolished in 2010 which did carry a sentence as punishment.

That I did not know.

As you point out it is now a civil matter which you could argue is probably worse than being put inside! I would personally prefer the force of the CPS than a top lawyer representing a multi-million pound outfit.
Click to expand...

Pre NCTJ course study! ;)
 
KIPAX said:
as you quoted me i presumed you meant me... sorry :) some days the internet can be a right royal pain to follow :)
Click to expand...

i only quoted you in relation to the 'messageboard' assumption...

sheff wed and hereford banned fans from their message boards which really went down well with fans but forum users can not write pub talk on the internet as it is legally publishing. For example in a pub I could suggest that you fiddle your taxes but without the word of allegedly and then backing up the fiddling accusation with more examples of I was making a point and not stating fact, you are within your rights to take me to the cleaners!

what was originally said may have been said in without thinking but what was written was terrible libel especially considering the subject matter. and someone flagged it up and I thought it best to come and explain with no agenda what was wrong with it.


delete the getty spit and continue - your a respected person on here to which lots listen to.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to have a little clear up. Can we keep to the topic and refrain from calling people idiots and making silly remarks please

These sort of threads are starting to get in the realms of how the wedding photography threads now

Thanks
 
kelack said:
I'm going to have a little clear up. Can we keep to the topic and refrain from calling people idiots and making silly remarks please

These sort of threads are starting to get in the realms of how the wedding photography threads now

Thanks
Click to expand...

In that case remove the Getty comment. It's childish, pathetic and not needed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:thinking:

It was deleted but now you've mentioned it so I'm going to have to edit yours as well
 
inkiboo said:
In that case remove the Getty (spit) comment. It's childish, pathetic and not needed.
Click to expand...

I explained why I put it.. I cant believe your getting so upset.. it wasnt aimed at you or any other photogrpaher.. it was aimed at a large company that stomped on little guys by giving free pictures away... but hey what the heck i will edit and remove myself rather than see you get so upset about it :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top