Comments on: AFL to ban news agency photojournalists? http://www.lawfont.com/2007/03/13/afl-to-ban-news-agency-photojournalists/ an analysis of law, technology, economics, and policy Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:51:01 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: kim http://www.lawfont.com/2007/03/13/afl-to-ban-news-agency-photojournalists/comment-page-1/#comment-27303 kim Wed, 21 Mar 2007 07:56:57 +0000 http://www.lawfont.com/2007/03/13/afl-to-ban-news-agency-photojournalists/#comment-27303 The <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2007/s1871239.htm" rel="nofollow">AM story is here</a>. The AM story is here.

]]> By: Craig http://www.lawfont.com/2007/03/13/afl-to-ban-news-agency-photojournalists/comment-page-1/#comment-26148 Craig Sun, 18 Mar 2007 23:01:00 +0000 http://www.lawfont.com/2007/03/13/afl-to-ban-news-agency-photojournalists/#comment-26148 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. 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.

]]> By: kim http://www.lawfont.com/2007/03/13/afl-to-ban-news-agency-photojournalists/comment-page-1/#comment-25749 kim Sun, 18 Mar 2007 06:22:18 +0000 http://www.lawfont.com/2007/03/13/afl-to-ban-news-agency-photojournalists/#comment-25749 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 <i>curtail</i> 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. 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.

]]> By: Steven http://www.lawfont.com/2007/03/13/afl-to-ban-news-agency-photojournalists/comment-page-1/#comment-24530 Steven Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:38:01 +0000 http://www.lawfont.com/2007/03/13/afl-to-ban-news-agency-photojournalists/#comment-24530 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? 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?

]]> By: kim http://www.lawfont.com/2007/03/13/afl-to-ban-news-agency-photojournalists/comment-page-1/#comment-23687 kim Tue, 13 Mar 2007 06:12:11 +0000 http://www.lawfont.com/2007/03/13/afl-to-ban-news-agency-photojournalists/#comment-23687 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. 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.

]]> By: Craig http://www.lawfont.com/2007/03/13/afl-to-ban-news-agency-photojournalists/comment-page-1/#comment-23683 Craig Tue, 13 Mar 2007 05:26:33 +0000 http://www.lawfont.com/2007/03/13/afl-to-ban-news-agency-photojournalists/#comment-23683 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. 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.

]]>