NFL Pushing Boundaries Of Ridiculous: Demands Photo Journalists Advertise Sponsors At Games
from the they're-just-seeing-how-far-they-can-push-it,-right? dept
The NFL really seems to be seeing just how far it can push journalists around these days. First it told them they couldn't videotape any part of the game themselves and had to use officially provided video. Then it told them that there was a limit to how much video any publication could show on its website, even if that video was filmed entirely by the publication itself. Apparently it's now moving on to abusing photojournalists as well. The NFL is now requiring all sideline photographers to wear vests advertising NFL sponsors. It seems the NFL considers the very journalists who help promote the sport as mere billboards and mouthpieces of its sponsors. Next up, perhaps it'll start requiring fans to wear advertising vests as well.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: integrity, journalism, nfl, sponsors
Companies: nfl
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ignore them
Somebody is sure to fire back about sports building character. You are right, sports are great, but pro sports sure don't build character. Look at the dog-fighting quarterback and gun-totting NBA players. This is the character built by sports? No, it is the depravity of ultra-rich pro sports.
Don't support their life-style. Spend your money more wisely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignore them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignore them
Are sure you're thinking sports, or American Idol? Sports, and following them, is one of, if not the oldest pasttime in the world, and has always been one of the most popular.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ignore them
Are sure you're thinking sports, or American Idol? Sports, and following them, is one of, if not the oldest pasttime in the world, and has always been one of the most popular.
Yes it is an old pastime and that is just what these pro leagues are taking advantage of. The sport itself is not the problem, its the execs running these leagues (that are trying to squeeze all the money they can out of fans) and the athletes (that are caught up in their own hype). Yes there are some execs and athletes that know how to act but due to America's fascination with the "bad boy/girl" image that they they don't stick out as much.
There is a lot of blame to go around. The execs for thinking they own their particular sport and everything relating to it. The athletes for thinking they are the center of the universe. And the fans that egg on those attitudes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignore them
not one of those millionaires cares about me, so i return the sentiment fully.
as to the original subject, i know nothing about the economics of pro sports leagues, so this just strikes me as greedy: forcing someone to be a billboard so you can make more money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NFL and Advertising
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To the devil with them...
However I will say that if they want photojounalists to wear advertising vests then I at they are aleast getting into the game for free. But what a stupid place to put an ad. I know that ads can influence people but I don't think anyone is going to care what brand name is on a photojournalists vest. I am honestly surprised they haven't started putting ads on the player's jersey's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
C'mon
Don't toss all pro sports out because some athletes have fallen to power and money. THAT corrution hits everywhere it touches... Politics, Hollywood, Enron.. etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: C'mon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't know what's worse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
College
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something wrong with this picture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Something wrong with this picture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But lets blame the players whenever there is a loc
And remember, we pay for it in the end. Don't go to games? You're still paying. You think ESPN is free? Did you know ESPN is responsible for over 50% of your cable bill?
I prefer college football over the NFL. Its not even close. But I still have to watch it on ESPN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But lets blame the players whenever there is a
Ala carte programming on cable, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But lets blame the players whenever there
ESPN dominates all networks!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But lets blame the players whenever th
1 -- put up an atnenna for over-the-air HD
2 -- price satellite for ono-local programming, since it tends to be less bundled
3 -- write my state and US legislators to demand that cable be required to offer ala carte without rasing their high rates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But lets blame the players whenever th
ESPN dominates all networks!!
-----
i know that it is not very recent but Buisnessweek said in mid-2004 when cox and espn were fighting over cable fees cox said that espn getsgot $2.61 a month for each subscribor. this translated to about 18% of what cox paid networks for the entire year. while it is a lot, espn is four channels (ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN Classic, and ESPNews) on the basic tier.
Even if you double that to to five dollars a month it is probably nowhere near 50 or 66% of your bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not that terrible
Of course it would kill Bush's whole Iraq is justified tour when they announce, "The President of the United States, brought to you by Halliburton!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not that terrible
Oh and the American flag would have a disclaimer on the bottom stripe.
Imagine that clash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nuts...
You know - in light of this, I'm finding many minor league teams are quite enjoyable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
let 'em do what they want...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: let 'em do what they want...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: let 'em do what they want...
George Carlin
Hey I'm from the south. We need the ice for our tea. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NFL Pushing Boundaries Of Ridiculous: Demands
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re; Boycott
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re; Boycott
it's your boss/employer who asks you to wear the tie and ID badge, but the photo journalists don't work for the NFL...
your analogy is so flawed I'm surprised you even considered it to be one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free admission?!
Sanguine Dream, you're a fucking idiot. Photographers aren't there to watch the fucking game, we're there to take pictures of it. It's hard fucking work which requires skill, talent and a metric fuckload of practice.
Most sports photogs I know really don't give a shit about sports beyond knowing how it's played and who does what in order to be in the right position to get the right angle in some super-action moment. Nothing else.
Photographers are there to do a job for their employers which helps promote these stupid games played by millionaire primadonnas who themselves are owned by billionaire primadonnas. Fuck 'em all. Me, I couldn't give a shit about any of it but I'm willing to spend two hours in some stadium as long as some newspaper is willing to give me €300-1000 for a picture which I can turn around and sell a few more times.
At the very least this absurd idea physically interferes with the photographer doing his job. We wear vests full of equipment; a vest on top of that would be physically restrictive and prevent us working properly. Since only pros with credentials (and almost no freelancers) can get near the sidelines and photo stands, it should be easy enough to boycott this. The "first three-song bullshit" at music concerts is another matter since most of the photographers are freelance and there are always a couple willing to live with this restriction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free admission?!
if you have credentials (and aren't a freelancer, so working for a newspaper) how is it possible you get to sell your picture(s) a few more times? How does the newspaper not get the exclusive (copy)right for a picture made by one of their employers, as (part of) his job?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free admission?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free admission?!
Before you go ranting on about your skills, crying that you don't care about the game, and childing name calling take a moment to remember that those "millionaire primadonnas who themselves are owned by billionaire primadonnas" are the reason you have a pay check.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lets change the team names too
Heck why stop there? Teams could change their names to accommodate their many sponsors.
How about "Chrysler presents the St Louis Dodge Rams" or "MacDonald s presents the Chicago Big Macs".
I can see it now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: lets change the team names too
In the US it's a little different...We have to watch a friggin commercial every 5 minutes during a football, baseball, basketball game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Answers
$NewsCo has previously seen my work and knows that I can deliver what they want to publish. They don't want to hire me and I don't want to be hired because I refuse to do works for hire. I keep my copyrights. They can, if they choose, provide me credentials under their banner so that I can get in to take those shots of primadonnas in motion they so want with which to grace their pages the next morning.
I provide a pic to $NewsCo and give them a limited exclusive license for 72 hours for a particular shot of $JoePrimadonna's amazing air kick/block/shot, but afterwards, I'm free to sell the shot to $AmazingSportsWeb for another $50 or whatever they want to negotiate, and then maybe again for another $200 from $BobWriter who thinks he'll make some quick cash with an unauthorised biography of $JoePrimadonna. It's not as complicated as it sounds; prices are pretty standardised.
Why not have teams sport sponsors on their uniforms and helmets.
We've done this for years in the EU. Haven't you noticed? One more reason for my contempt is what Americans are slowly noticing: it has nothing to do with the locality anymore, only the sponsors and money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free admission
I earn money from a purely cynical side. Enough idiots think that sports are important that companies are willing to pay me for good photographs of the subject that I can earn a nice little sideline sum. That doesn't change the facts that the work is fucking hard and tedious.
If you don't like them, go take pictures of something else.
I do, and I earn more money from that than from sports. Still, when I accept the gig, my job in a stadium is to either report the game overall or promote the fucking team, not their sponsors. That could change if I got a piece of the action. Were I to get a percentage I'd have no problem with them offering me additional cash if I manage get a sponsor's logo in a shot.
But the sports teams aren't paying me, neither for the shots I take that the newspapers pay for nor for their damned branding. I get paid well if I get a killer shot of something going on in the stands. The shots that I do take benefit that sports group but are paid for by the sponsoring publication and serve to promote the stupid game. That's the whole point of this Techdirt entry.
The millionaire primaonnas can all collectively suck a fart out of my ass. As long as they pose so I can get the shot (and they all pose), that's all that matters to me on a personal level. It's money in my pocket.
So sorry to hear that your job is soooo difficult.
Sounds like sour grapes. Couldn't sell those pictures you took from the nosebleed section with your phone camera? There's a reason professionals get paid what they do.
All these restrictions hampering your artistica bilities....it's enough to make me cry.
Since my talent combined with €8000 worth of fucking Canon equipment promotes their product and helps them earn even more money, the restrictions are, by definition, wrong. The fact that they pay me to do such work proves that what I do has more value than what I charge them or they wouldn't pay for my services. Or did you forget what site we're on? This is basic fucking economics.
Sanguine: it was more ranty than personal. You made an on-topic comment and followed it with mind-boggling ignorance. Photographers are no more at an event to watch it than are pilots and locomotive engineers heading to their vacation destinations. It's work, plain and simple. If I'm shooting a concert and I happen to like the band it helps a lot, but more often than not it's noise from a performer that I can't stand but whom I'm paid to make look good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Free admission
Sanguine: it was more ranty than personal. You made an on-topic comment and followed it with mind-boggling ignorance. Photographers are no more at an event to watch it than are pilots and locomotive engineers heading to their vacation destinations. It's work, plain and simple. If I'm shooting a concert and I happen to like the band it helps a lot, but more often than not it's noise from a performer that I can't stand but whom I'm paid to make look good.
Fine I'll accept that I don't know about the photojournal industry (I work in financial tech support) but just come down off that high horse of yours next time and it will sound a lot better. And it really didn't help that out of a two paragraph comment you pick one line and proceed to start your counter argument by calling me a fucking idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NFL - Not For Long...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ESPN dominates all networks!!
-----
i know that it is not very recent but Buisnessweek said in mid-2004 when cox and espn were fighting over cable fees cox said that espn getsgot $2.61 a month for each subscribor. this translated to about 18% of what cox paid networks for the entire year. while it is a lot, espn is four channels (ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN Classic, and ESPNews) on the basic tier.
Even if you double that to to five dollars a month it is probably nowhere near 50 or 66% of your bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]