Tuesday, 13 March 2007
Crikey today is reporting that:
In a move thought to be unprecedented in global sport, photographers from international news agencies like Reuters, AFP, AP and Getty Images have been locked out of AFL games for season 2007. Their work has been replaced by an agency created by the AFL to manage the League’s press photography. Geoff Slattery Publishing, publishers of the AFL Record, has the contract to manage AFL photography. But the scheme has raised serious questions about press freedom and the right of news organisations to report on public events.
So this is bad, I’d agree, for all kinds of reasons that Crikey explores. But all I can think is – what a great opportunity for amateur photographers to take and sell photos to the press! Citizen journalists unite.
UPDATE:Crikey have another story about the AFL move today – which points out attempts by others – in particular, FIFA – to do something similar. Apparently, so far attempts to do this kind of thing have led only to tears (and rapid backdowns). I await the next development…
Bookmark or share this story:
Del.icio.us | 
Digg | 
Reddit | 
ma.gnolia.com | 
Newsvine | 
furl |
Technorati | 
IceRocket | 
PubSub | 
Google | 
Yahoo
6 Responses to “AFL to ban news agency photojournalists?”
Leave a Reply
Do not post material that is defamatory or obscene, that infringes any third party's copyrights, trademarks or other proprietary rights, or that violates any other right of any other person.
We reserve the right to remove or edit any comment for any reason.
Note: Posting more than two links in a comment may cause it not to appear because it will be submitted for moderation. Also, links in comments will not be counted by Google, so spamming is pointless.
Posts
Comments
Posts
March 13th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
I’m a little rusty in my competition law, but doesn’t this have ramifications for exclusive dealing under the Trade Practices Act?
It would be interesting, as a stunt, if the foreign media organisations hire a blimp and fly it over the MCG to take pictures. Victoria Racing Park v Taylor comes to mind.
March 13th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Yes, I’m rusty on competition law too. Love the blimp idea, by the way. What I’m not so clear on is how the AFL would make sure no one else was taking photos and selling them to the news agencies. at worst, if you did that, you might be breaching one of the conditions on your ticket.
March 15th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
On the surface this sounds like a problem. However, I have read that Getty’s contract expired, and after an expression of interest process the contract was awarded to Geoff Slattery Publishing instead. Help me to understand what difference it makes who won the contract?
March 18th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Steven – guess it depends on the exclusivity issue. If there was previously one exclusive accredited photo agency, and they were replaced with another, that is one matter. If previously there were several accredited agencies, or a situation where anyone could apply, and that is no longer true, then there’s a problem. The strong tenor of the letter from the World Association of Newspapers, in the first Crikey story, is that the recent AFL decision was to curtail photographic media coverage.
If that’s not the case, then you might still assume there’s a bit of a problem (a photographer with exclusive rights has strong incentives only to publish or sell those photographs which show the AFL in a good light), but it’s not a new problem.
March 19th, 2007 at 9:01 am
I think there is an issue from the overseas agents’ point of view because Geoff Slattery Publishing is apparently run by persons friendly to the AFL, so there might be a perception of bias from the AFL to the winning tenderer and an assertion made by the press agencies of a lack of editorial independence.
There is a transcript of a story about this issue on ABC’s AM program (a simple search of Google News finds it) and the story suggests that Getty Images was contracted to photograph AFL matches and once the contract expired Geoff Slattery Publishing won the contract.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:56 pm
The AM story is here.