Have you ever approached Gallatin R-5 Athletic Field for a high school football game to be confronted with two games B the official one on the field under the lights and the other played with make-your-own-rules in the shadows? Sometimes the latter game is more interesting.
This website brought to you in part by the following sponsor:
I realize the spotlight is on the Final Four which climaxes all the March Madness of the men=s NCAA championship basketball tournament. But a game still being played out between the NCAA and the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette should interest you. Although this game occurred recently in Little Rock, the controversy is as close to home as the next time you decide to video a hometown high school athletic event from anywhere but from the stands.
Bear with me. Let=s see if I can correctly connect the dots.
The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette wanted to cover the University of Arkansas-Little Rock=s opening game against Delaware in the NCAA Women’s Basketball Tournament. However, the newspaper learned that as a condition for media credentials, the NCAA now requires news organizations to sign away control of their photographs and their video related to events as well as editorial control of video highlights.
This is, of course, about money.
The Little Rock newspaper publisher is livid. News companies as well as industry and professional associations nationwide are protesting. They argue that the NCAA wants to create a monopoly for itself, for its member schools and the for-profit marketing companies with which they sign exclusive contracts.
ASo, if we took a picture of Delaware’s Elena Delle Donne — arguably the best player in the country — making a game‑winning play, we couldn’t give or sell a copy of the photo to proud parents or grandparents,@ says Little Rock publisher Walter Hussman. The controversy involves…
$ A picture taken by a photographer with his own camera on company time
$ A public event played in a taxpayer‑financed sports program at the taxpayer‑owned Jack Stephens Center at UALR, which is a taxpayer‑owned university
The Democrat-Gazette approached NCAA policy makers more than a month before the game. An NCAA official basically said it is the NCAA’s event and its rules. The newspaper was advised that it could either sign photo property rights to the NCAA or be denied admission to press facilities.
The newspaper chose another route. The publisher wanted his readers to have local news in their local newspaper written by local reporters without giving up what belongs to the newspaper. So, reporters bought tickets and attended the NCAA Tournament as spectators with notepads and cameras. They covered the game from the stands.
Now, you might say this isn=t such a big deal. Press row credentials, after all, only involve a select few. Traditionally it usually means a choice seat, access to the post-game interview room, and some jelly-filled pastry B or something similar along the way. But, and this is easily overlooked, the heart of this controversy is actually property rights.
What the NCAA now requires is right out of the NFL Alet=s make money@ playbook. Defining property rights is a big part of why the Big 12 Conference blew apart. And lots of athletic organizations B even state high school activity associations B are paying attention.
Frankly, the boundary lines are getting blurry.
This weekly newspaper has photographed, published, given away and sold photographs of our local high school athletes for decades. For years the rules involved were scant. As long as you respected the court or the athletic field as a classroom, application of such rules was generally lax. In fact, about the only thing you really weren=t allowed to do was use a flash while photographing at a state basketball game (how quaint!).
Things have changed. Questions on property rights became more focused with widespread use of hand-held video cameras. For me, that started with Gallatin=s state semifinal football game at South Shelby in 2005. We lost, 27-24, in what essentially decided the state championship, a game that left me shimmering not just from the cold but with excitement about the video clips of my son and his classmates. It was such a memorable day, and I got some good ones!
Obviously, I wasn=t the only one taking pictures. But I was one of only a few standing just a yard off the playing field, with audio and video perspectives not discernable from the stands. And the opportunities, with advancing technologies and lower equipment prices, only increase with each passing year.
Today MSHSAA enforces more rules than ever concerning electronic imaging. Without some rules, what would keep me or anybody from taking audio/video on an opponent for an upcoming game for unfair advantage? What would keep me or anybody from packaging images of amateur youngsters with any sponsors I might choose? What if the best paying sponsors weren=t exactly the type you=d want to associate with your son or daughter B and you realize you=re unable to take it off YouTube or some website of my choice?
Who controls what?
The daily newspaper at Little Rock has the means beyond my scope to research answers. In their particular case for that NCAA game, here is a listing of their choices:
1) Comply, giving the NCAA full rights
2) Agree to NCAA terms and conditions to get credentials, but then not honor them; sell photos and let the NCAA sue (lawyers say the newspaper is almost certain to lose plus, under the terms and conditions, would pay the NCAA’s legal fees)
3) Agree to terms and conditions but just not send photographers to games
4) Rely on others like the Associated Press to cover the games (which means newspapers will stop covering the games and use whatever the NCAA provides or agrees to allow the Associated Press to distribute)
5) Not agree to the terms and conditions of NCAA credentials and report games from the stands.
Thanks for reading. I don=t have any answers. But now you know why sportswriter Dennis Cox or I might have to ask you to move over someday when we meet up in the bleachers.