and please use their services
Southampton FC ban press photographers
- Thread starter SuperAP
- Start date
- Messages
- 1,273
- Name
- mmm......... Gary
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Sorry chaps but I am on the clubs side , There ground that they paid for , there players that they pay for , what do the newspapers do for the club and indeed clubs around the country do they give them a share of the revenue from sales .......no , also this will really only affect one newspaper the southampton Echo , well if you have ever worked for or had them use your images you will know this is a one way street , so if Southampton Football Club want to control there image rights good luck to them.
- Messages
- 2,901
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
Obviously not a sports photographer who's livelyhood depends on access to football stadiums.
So if Southampton FC donot issue passes to press are they also not issing them to visiting teams or press wanting to cover the visiting team? Surely Southampton Echo will only be covering the Saints attack and any goals scored by the away team will be missed. What about contracts that some clubs have with certain agencies? Will they also be refused?
Do you imagine that business pays vast amounts of money to individuals because of some love of the game? It is a organization that exists, like all commercial enterprises, simply to make money.
It is arguable that sport should not be commercialized in this way but currently it is. It is so commercialized that it gives those involved a very good living indeed. If the fans don't like it they should vote with their wallets and stop paying to watch the games.
As I wrote already I suspect that if not Southampton another club will succeed in managing control of the images at their ground and others will quickly follow their example.
Look at it another way. You are a sports photographic agency that has paid for sole access to the grounds. You'll have to employ photographers to work for you - so there are still going to be jobs for sports photographers.
To pay for this operation you'll have to promote your images to the media agencies and sell them. To restrict certain images (or control the output to suit the club) you'll have to be either very expensive with images that everyone wants or be subsidized by the club. I doubt it is really in the interest of the club to censor images (although I can imagine situations when they might put pressure on the agent to 'support' their club) so I suspect the result is simply Digital South earning the money to support their own business and will be selling whatever they can for what they can get to whoever wants them rather than several individuals trying to do the same.
- Messages
- 5,021
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
:bang::bang::bang:
Do Journalists stand out from the crowd in some way? :shrug:
I don't know what the average gate is at Southampton, but do they have time to check everyone's occupation? :shrug:
Let's not have any Pompey fans having a dig about that, they should be more concerned with numbers of players, not numbers of fans.
Well given that they sit in the press box and get into the ground for free...I would imagine so. I can't imagine too many newspapers paying for tickets either
Don't worry about it mate. I don't think many people actually understand this issue. So why bother trying to educate them?!
Enjoy turf moor today...I'm going to get soaked at Ashton Gate.
- Messages
- 2,901
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
Incorrect. Agencies pay for a licence which allows them to to work inside football stadiums under the Football DataCo regulations. They still have to apply for a pass to each club. They donot have sole rights unless under a special agreement with the club (in this case Southampton).
Very few agencies employ photographers on a full time bases. Some offer freelance contracts on a yearly basis and quite a lot use freelancers on "sales" only basis.
I believe you are making comments about a "system" you have very little or no knowledge about.
- Messages
- 5,021
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I know, though to be fair if i wasn't starting out in the industry i probably wouldn't be aware of the issues and problems with accreditation
Have a good un at City
In which case I am correct and they DO have sole access rights under terms that they have agreed.
So you have secured a 'special agreement'. How would you best secure a return for your business?
By employing photographers on a freelance basis.... How is that different to a 'sports photographer who's livelyhood depends on access to football stadiums' trying to sell the images to an agency after the event?
I believe that you have very little commercial experience. I suspect (but do not know) that this is an arrangement instigated by the club intending to find a way to secure control of some of their image rights. - I don't expect this is necessarily Southampton acting alone, they are not a premiership club currently and it appears that they may be in a position to 'experiment' a bit more with the logistics and (perhaps) even legality of the system.
But get used to it, as I suspect that once someone has found a way of doing it others will follow.
- Messages
- 5,021
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Wheres that Damn popcorn smiley
Graham is one of the most experienced Sports photographers around and regularly gets usage from PL games.
He is also one of the most experienced and successful event togs going
- Messages
- 2,901
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
No your reply was a general one relating to all agencies. None of these have sole rights. You have taken my reply out of contence.In which case I am correct and they DO have sole access rights under terms that they have agreed.
Again your lack of knowledge is showing. You cannot gain pitchside entrance to any fooltball league side unless you have a pass. To apply for a pass you must have either 1. Your own licence supplied by the Football DataCo. 2. Work for a newspaper. 3. Working for an agency. You simply cannot just turn up and get access to the stadium with a view to take photographs and no one sells football images to an agency after the game. Football shooters have to upload during the game to go onto the system for sports editors to see. During evening games it is very unlikely any image would be used if sent after 9pm unless its a major prem or champs league match.
The sports pages in this country are driven by football and it is football images that comand the higher fees hence the fierce competition to get access especially with the bigger clubs.
True but then we are talking sport and football not general commercial business and with sport I do have a lot of experience.
This has been tried by two other clubs in the past and both have failed and/or hit objections by major press.I doubt if this situation will last very long either.
Trying to educate the "uneducated" with the complexities of shooting sport and football in general is very difficult especially when they try to compare with general photography or in this case "comercial photography". This post is not about "moaning" or "getting over it" its purely about informing people of the obsticles placed in the paths of somes chosen profession. On this point I no further comments to make on this topic.
I can understand why he is bothered about control of photographic access being given over to an agent of a club. But as I've written, I suspect that is what is being tried. And others - for purely commercial and not sinister motives - want to do exactly the same. They will just as soon as they can.Graham is one of the most experienced Sports photographers around and regularly gets usage from PL games.
He is also one of the most experienced and successful event togs going
So sports photographers may have to get used to working for local agents and not selling to (inter)national ones. If the rate is not good enough then they will have to find another way of making a living.
Sadly perhaps, but this is the way commercialised sport events are going everywhere.
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 20,982
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
Thats why I am not getting into a fret about it... they will see the error of there ways...
On the flip side i could see it happening one day.. But it would have to be somehtign all clubs and the league agree to in order for it to work and i just cant see that happening anytime soon..
A bigger agency (and you can guess the ones) wrapping up a whole league could happen..
The only safe bet is being a club photographer.. and I recently gave up that position at my club... erk
In what way exactly was 'Look at it another way. You are a sports photographic agency that has paid for sole access to the ground' a 'general' one relating to all agencies?
Where do you imagine you think I have said they can?
But you were taking exception to my comments about the commercial aspects the football club and Digital South may have to consider......
I'm sure this may not be the end of the process by any means. But that others have tried and Southampton are trying again suggests to me that there is a benefit for the clubs in trying to secure such an agreement.
And as there is such a lot of money involved they will continue until they are successful.
Thank you for calling me 'uneducated'. Do you want me to point out your simple spelling mistakes now or later?
I may not have sold photographs taken from the touchline of a first division club since the late '70's but I am, clearly unlike you, aware of the difference between the commercial demands of a major corporation and wherever you imagine 'commercial photography' is. Who has mentioned 'commercial photography' anyway?
- Messages
- 676
- Name
- Rob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Theres no way I can get in that position at either of the clubs that would interest me, the guy who does it at Forest already has his son lined up to take his job, and the guy at Donny Rovers is their Media Manager. I'll stick to rugby for the moment.The only safe bet is being a club photographer.. and I recently gave up that position at my club... erk
- Messages
- 6,900
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If it is a choice between no report or paying for a ticket to watch and report on a game from the stand, I think most newspapers could afford to spring for a ticket.
That said I can't see match reporting going the same way as the photography, they need media coverage after all, and a match report doesn't have as much (resale) value as image(s).
There has been talk of the 'club photographer' being safe, but I see a story happening at some point of a club photographer who has given '10, 20, 30 years service' losing his job when one of these agencies starts choosing the photographers they want to use.
This is an interesting thread and it is good to hear from pro and amateur opinions and experience.
Totally agree however in football it is pretty much a captured market and fan's will go to hell and back for 'their' team and even when boycotts (newcastle againt ashley) are talked about they never happen in great numbers due to the fans loyalty.
My feeling is the commercialization of the sport will eventually be it's downfall, and as highlight by the Portsmouth case there are many teams on/very near the edge. Too many investors treat teams that loyal supporters have watched in all weather and thru the ups and down as a commodity and off load at the earliest opportunity.
I suppose that's life and we have to learn to live/put up with it
Last edited:
raider2727
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,108
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Have to agree with this, As today they were only playing Argyle i cant think for one second that anyone would wanto to cover it anyway.
- Messages
- 1,528
- Name
- Martin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 5,161
- Name
- Nigel Cliff
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Apart from the local rag I cant see there being many photo's of the Saints in the papers and what happens when the big boys decide not to send reporters to St Mary's,Southamptons sponsors will start to get seriously hacked off at the lack of coverage
- Messages
- 984
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I didn't say that the press can do what it likes and I don't dispute that Southampton FC have a legal right to impose whatever restrictions they like on photography and reportage.
I simply said that it could be argued that they have a moral duty to allow fair, free and unbiased reportage, including pictures, given the level of public interest.
By all means argue against what I say but please don't put words in my mouth. You really should read posts more thoroughly before responding. :nono:
- Messages
- 7,882
- Edit My Images
- No
people do understand the issue we just see it properly not jaded like the sports photographers do.
You need to consider your replies more carefully if your position was not supporting Rovers_Andy who asked if people had heard about the 'freedom of the press' then.
- Messages
- 984
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You need to consider your replies more carefully if your position was not supporting Rovers_Andy who asked if people had heard about the 'freedom of the press' then.
I was merely commenting on the remark from POAH and presenting an alternative view that Southampton maybe had a moral duty rather than a legal obligation. I don't understand why you are getting your knickers in a knot over this. :bang:
- Messages
- 7,882
- Edit My Images
- No
Not quite. You wrote 'it could be argued that enough people are interested in football for it to be in the public interest and therefore Southampton have a moral duty to allow fair, free and unbiased reportage'
Let's hear this fabulous argument then.
- Messages
- 984
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I thought I'd said it in the sentance you just quoted, but apparently not. :shrug: However, I'll let you have the last word on this as it's obviously important to you - it's just not a burning issue with me, I was merely making an observation. Anyway, I've got some photos to take so it's over to you.....
- Messages
- 984
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So charities should have morals but not businesses? O.K. that's fair comment and I don't want to go off on a tangent with a new arguement. Each to their own I guess. Like I said to Voyager it's not a burning issue for me and I'm off to do something more constructive.
Clearly not as all you have written is '..could be argued..' and '..maybe had..' which suggest you think there is a moral position that a football club could take. Not that you were making one.
- Messages
- 7,882
- Edit My Images
- No
good that way I'll have the last word 
So charities should have morals but not businesses? O.K. that's fair comment and I don't want to go off on a tangent with a new arguement. Each to their own I guess. Like I said to Voyager it's not a burning issue for me and I'm off to do something more constructive.
Southampton 0 - 1 Plymouth FT
Will any still pictures exist of the Plymouth goal?
It actually got caught from both ends of the pitch.
http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/page/Gallery/0,,10280~2114628,00.html
The second and fourth images in that gallery.
- Messages
- 10,072
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It looks like this ban may be on the rocks already, the Digital South agency have confirmed that they declined the Saints offer (which will cost them financially apparently!) on moral grounds
- Messages
- 5,021
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
From the Club photographers
Also for the sake of clarity The Digital South have nothing to do with Southamptons decision and refused to syndicate the images
Sounds like Southampton are manipulating a small agency to try and force the hands of others. You have to love the morals of big business, eh?It looks like this ban may be on the rocks already, the Digital South agency have confirmed that they declined the Saints offer (which will cost them financially apparently!) on moral grounds
I wonder which club will be the first to try to syndicate their own pictures? If it is one of the big teams in the Premiership it would be hard for the majors to avoid using them.